Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid and Development Programmes

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the estimated current cost to Great Britain's balance of payments of the Government's overseas aid and development programmes.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): I would refer my hon. Friend to my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) on 2nd February, 1967. Put shortly, about one-third of any increase in the aid programme would have a direct effect on our balance of payments.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in the present economic context the cost to our balance of payments is being grossly over-estimated and that it is high time that some detailed work was done on this matter to illustrate the true cost?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. I think that we ought to do some study into this. It is very difficult to get precise figures. Approximately one-third of the aid programme is a direct cost to the balance of payments in the short run, but in the longer term there are other advantages to the balance of payments accruing from aid, and that is something on which we ought to have more data. I will put in train studies to that effect.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he will restore the cuts made last winter in Great Britain's overseas aid and development programmes.

Mr. Prentice: The total amount of aid next year will be higher than this year, but I cannot give a precise figure yet as several aspects are still being worked out.

Mr. Judd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the cuts made last winter were out of all proportion to the economic problems with which we are confronted in Britain, and does he realise that there will be no satisfaction in the House until they are restored at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Prentice: I cannot say at this stage whether the figure for next year will be more or less than the £225 million target for last year. The aid programme of any Government is bound to be conditioned, among other things, by its own balance of payments situation.

Mr. Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information about that? When will the Government be in a position to announce the figure for next year?

Mr. Prentice: There are three main factors. There will be an extra £5 million of food aid as a result of the Kennedy Round. We know that. There is the question of I.D.A. replenishment, and there is a Question on the Order Paper about that. There is also the mitigatory aid for Singapore and Malaysia on which we are at a very early stage of our talks with those countries.

Aid (Supply of Equipment)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what studies his Department has made to ascertain whether items of equipment, no longer economic at United Kingdom labour/ capital/fuel cost ratios, would still be economic in developing countries; how their scrap values compare with their potential value overseas; and whether the Government would consider adding such items to the existing aid programme.

Mr. Prentice: The use of our aid funds depends on development priorities in the receiving countries. There has been no significant demand for supplies of secondhand machinery or for studies concerning its use. We would be ready to consider any such requests with every sympathy.

Mr. Higgins: Could not the United Kingdom Government take an initiative? Is it not the case that much of the equipment scrapped is economically obsolescent but not physically worn out? Will he not initiate studies, particularly into the capital goods which could be used for infrastructure?

Mr. Prentice: Some studies have been made under U.N. auspices and there is the work in this country of the Intermediate Technology Group, with which my Department is in close touch. If these lead to a conclusion which would result in our doing more in this direction, we should certainly consider doing so.

International Development Association

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress is being made in negotiations between the World Bank and contributors to the International Development Association regarding replenishment of the funds of the Association; whether he is satisfied that a solution to the problem will be found before the forthcoming United Nations Commission for Trade and Development meeting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: A meeting of representatives of the Part I donors has just concluded in The Hague. Further meetings are planned in the hope of reaching a settlement before the second UNCTAD. Throughout the discussions, Her Majesty's Government have stressed to their fellow Part I donors the urgency and importance we attach to I.D.A. replenishment. We have notified the President of the Bank that, subject to satisfactory conditions, we are prepared to invite Parliament to make provision for the proportionate British contribution to a replenishment of I.D.A. at double the present level.

Mr. Higgins: Would the Minister give particular attention to this matter inasmuch as the effect on our balance of payments is very considerable—a favourable effect, if anything—given that the untied aid results in a considerable increase in British exports?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. I can confirm that we get a good deal more back in terms of orders as a result of I.D.A. activities than we put into the Association. For

that reason and many others, because of this effect of aid, we want to see a substantial replenishment and we want to see this matter resolved urgently.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is co-ordination with the President of the Board of Trade, because there is no point in giving overseas aid to under-developed countries, on the one hand, and shutting out their products with tariff barriers, on the other hand?

Mr. Prentice: That is an important point but I do not think that it arises directly from the Question.

Mauritius

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what requests for aid he has had from Mauritius; how much has been granted; and how much will be spent on atolls of special scientific interest.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. A. E. Oram): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs on 1st November to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson)—[Vol. 753, c. 5–6] I understand that there are no atolls of special interest forming part of the territory of Mauritius.
If my hon. Friend is referring to atolls in the British Indian Ocean Territory, this is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there, then, no financial relationship or understanding with Mauritius on the question of Aldabra?

Mr. Oram: None that falls within the scope of the work of my Ministry.

Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the amount of aid to be given to Mauritius on independence is to be worked out?

Mr. Oram: No, Sir. I have no statement to make about that at this stage.

Seychelles

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid his Department gives to the Seychelles; and how much of such aid provides help for Seychellois fishermen fishing waters round atolls.

Mr. Oram: Aid to the Seychelles from my Department amounted to £476,000 in the last financial year. This was in addition to grants-in-aid of the Seychelles budget, amounting to £80,000, which were provided by the Commonwealth Office.
A fisheries expert was sent to the Seychelles in 1965 to undertake a survey of the fishing industry and I understand that his report is being studied by the Seychelles Government. No financial aid has been sought for fisheries projects.

Mr. Dalyell: Do I understand that there is no clause referring to Aldabra in any financial agreement that we have with the Seychelles?

Mr. Oram: As I indicated in reply to a supplementary question on the last Question, none that I know of in relation to my Ministry's work.

Mr. Braine: Since the Question refers to aid to the Seychelles, can the hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with the negotiations which have been under way for some time about the provision of refrigeration facilities for the fishing industry?

Mr. Oram: That is another question and I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would place it on the Order Paper.

Kenya (Resettlement Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the progress of the 400,000 acre resettlement scheme in Kenya which is largely financed by British loans.

Mr. Prentice: In order to give the hon. Gentleman as much information as I can, I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Can he say whether most of the problems, which we have debated, in regard to

valuation and the fairness of valuation, have been resolved? Does he agree that valuation has to be seen to be fair as well as being fair?

Mr. Prentice: As the hon. Gentleman said, these matters have been debated considerably in the House. We have often stated our confidence in the professional valuers in Kenya who are doing this work. I am looking forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman next week, when we will be able to discuss these matters at length.

Following is the statement:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this programme is in three parts. Preliminary inquiries are presently being made by the Kenya Ministry of Lands and Settlement of potential vendors in the O1 Arabel and Londiani areas with a view to the possible purchase of some 16,000 and 14,000 acres respectively for low and medium density settlement schemes. So far as private purchases are concerned, the Kenya Agricultural Finance Corporation and Land Bank has now issued loans totalling £110,765 for the purchase of farms belonging to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Under the first year of the Kenya Agricultural Development Corporation's purchase programme, 25 out of 36 offers have been accepted and four more offers to complete this programme are now under consideration by potential vendors. The Agricultural Development Corporation has recently issued letters to 66 farmers in the Molo and Trans Nzoia areas asking them if they wish to be included in the Second-Year Programme.

Co-operative Development (Technical Advisers)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many experts provided under technical assistance are now in post advising overseas governments on the development of co-operative societies; and if he will give their names, type of co-operative advice covered and post of duty in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Oram: Six experts provided under Technical Assistance are now in post advising overseas governments on cooperative development. I will, with permission, circulate the information requested in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In addition, there are approximately 45 British officers serving in posts concerned with co-operatives in overseas administrations under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme.

Mr. Pavitt: Why is there a decrease of two this year compared with last year, and why are there none in Asia?

Mr. Oram: Two have recently returned at the conclusion of their tour of duty. As to why there are none in Asia, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me notice of that question; but I would make the point that we pro-

Name of Expert
Description
Post


D. G. Hines
…
Adviser on Co-operatives
…
…
…
…
…
Kenya


J. H. Woolley
…
Co-operative Training Officer
…
…
…
…
…
Kenya


J. J. Guy
…
Adviser in Works Management to the Co-operative Movement
…
Uganda


J. C. Elphick
…
Co-operative Society Auditor
…
…
…
…
…
Malawi


M. C. Wordsworth
…
Co-operative Adviser
…
…
…
…
…
Iran


H. R. H. Kelly
…
Co-operative Marketing Officer
…
…
…
…
…
Bolivia

Zambia

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much Government aid is currently being provided to Zambia; and whether such aid carries any conditions requiring the Zambian Government to desist from supporting armed infiltration into Rhodesia.

Mr. Prentice: The total expenditure on development aid for which my Ministry is responsible is expected to amount to about £4·4 million, for the current financial year. Some other items of Government assistance are given to Zambia and these are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. The answer to the second half of the Question is, "No". It is not the practice to attach conditions of this kind to aid.

Mr. Biffen: While noting that Answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not agree that it is deplorable that a country in such generous receipt of British taxpayers' money should, nevertheless, pursue a policy which can only make a settlement with Mr. Smith's Government all the more difficult and, therefore, be acting against the British national interest?

Mr. Prentice: We have made it clear on several occasions that we disapprove of any violent solution to the Rhodesian problem. We have made our view clear to the Zambian Government and they stated several times that they are not giving help to infiltrators. Apart from that, we should regard the policy of development aid, certainly in the long term, as being designed to help people's standards of living and not to turn it on and off like a tap because of a temporary difficulty.
vide such experts in response to requests from overseas Governments. Thus, the geographical distribution is not, so to speak, a matter of our direct disposition.

Following is the information:

Mr. John Hall: While appreciating that this is on another point, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what is the value of the business which Zambia is doing with Rhodesia?

Mr. Prentice: Not without notice.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As this country is legally responsible for the people of Rhodesia, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this decision and say to the Zambian Government that, if they want aid from us, they must stop terrorists going over the border to create havoc and murder?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. We have a number of responsibilities in this matter. We accept responsibility for helping the development of Zambia so that the people living in poverty there can have a better life. This should be considered as important by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Aid (Allocation)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportions of the total sum of £205 million allotted by the Government for Overseas Aid in 1967–68 are to be in currency, advisory services, capital goods, and consumer goods, respectively.

Mr. Oram: Figures for 1967–68 will not be available until after the end of the year. Following the hon. Gentleman's classification as closely as I can, the proportions for the calendar year 1966 were as follows: budgetary aid, 13 per cent.; technical assistance of a broadly advisory nature, 12 per cent.; bilateral financial aid, most of which is for the purchase of capital goods, 59 per cent.; and other aid, 16 per cent.

Mr. Davidson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he say how it is intended to spend the additional £20 million, the increase which the Minister has publicly undertaken to grant in the coming year?

Mr. Oram: In answering an earlier Question, my right hon. Friend indicated the three main categories of such increases as we are looking forward to in the coming year.

Military Aid

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the capital goods distributed as Overseas Aid in 1967–68 is materials of a military nature.

Mr. Prentice: None, Sir. Military aid is not part of the economic aid programme to developing countries administered by my Department.

Mr. Davidson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer—and I am delighted to have the assurance contained in it—may I please ask him to say what type of aid is contemplated for Singapore and Malaysia to replace our reduced military commitment in the area?

Mr. Prentice: Broadly speaking, it will be aid directed to the development of the economies of those two countries, but the details are still being discussed with them.

Technical Assistance Programmes

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of Government aid overseas is currently allocated for technical assistance programmes.

Mr. Prentice: About 19 per cent.

Mr. Gardner: Would my right hon. Friend accept that probably the most valuable form of assistance we can give to developing countries is the sort of assistance which provides for the export of "know-how" rather than simply supplying budgetary aid? Will he seek to ensure that, in future years, this welcome increase in this type of aid is continued?

Mr. Prentice: Broadly speaking, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

The amounts of technical assistance have been increasing in recent years, and although there are several other factors which may affect the future level of aid —whether or not it can be increased—I assure my hon. Friend that we certainly regard this as among the most valuable things we do.

British Virgin Islands (Tortola Airfield)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when it is proposed to start work on the new airfield in the British Virgin Islands.

Mr. Oram: I hope that work on the improvement of Tortola Airfield will start towards the end of March, 1968. It will be carried out by the Royal Engineers.

Mr. Marten: While I am glad to hear that news, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the foundations will be sufficiently strong for the airfield to be extended to take really big aircraft at a later stage? Will the money come out of the special C.D. and W. grant?

Mr. Oram: The Royal Engineers did a feasibility study on this project and I have no doubt that they took into account the sort of point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. On the financial side, this is still a matter for discussion between my Department and the Commonwealth Office; but I assure him that there will be no difficulty in the provision of finance for this project.

Mr. Rankin: Since I take it that this airfield is meant to contribute to the development of the Virgin Islands, may I ask whether it will be used solely for civil purposes?

Mr. Oram: I am not sure about the extent of the airport's use, but it is intended to be largely in connection with the development of the islands, particularly with the development of their tourist trade.

Mr. Braine: Since the Chief Minister there recently said that the Government are failing to understand and meet the needs of this small territory, and since he complained that no British Minister had been there, can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any proposal for a Minister or senior official of his Department


of the Commonwealth Office to visit this territory?

Mr. Oram: There is no proposal for a Minister to visit the territory at present, but we have a Development Division in the Caribbean and officials from that Division are constantly available should their presence be necessary.

Pakistan (United Kingdom Pensioners)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will seek powers to grant interest-free loans to United Kingdom residents in receipt of pensions from Pakistan, who have had their pensions reduced as a result of the devaluation of the Indian rupee, until their pension cuts have been restored.

Mr. Oram: The responsibility for paying these pensions at the former rate is without question a matter for the two Governments concerned. We have made strong representations to the two Governments.

Mr. Allason: Do the Government still stand by the undertaking given in 1955 by the Government that such pensioners can have faith that the Government will look after their interests should they fall on evil times?

Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir; we stand by that undertaking. In relation to this specific difficulty—we regret, of course, that these people have had their pensions reduced in this way—I will, exceptionally and without derogating from the position that Her Majesty's Government have no direct responsibility in the matter, nevertheless consider the possibility of making loan advances as a temporary arrangement to any individual pensioner who is suffering serious hardship because of the reduction in his pension.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend look at the whole case and not just the exceptional ones? These people have done their service on the sub-continent. Will my hon. Friend look at the whole matter? Will he also say how many are involved and what the expense would be?

Mr. Oram: We are constantly looking at the whole case. We have constantly been in touch with the Governments of both Pakistan and India on the matter, and the High Commissioners have

recently been in touch in Rawalpindi and New Delhi. So there is no question of our not having done all that is possible. As to the numbers, 21 have made their cases known to us. I would stress that this is a matter for the Pakistan Government, and we have no full information from them about the full number.

Mr. Braine: Is it correct to say that this is solely a matter for the Pakistan Government? Does not this House always show a keen interest in the pension arrangements of overseas civil servants who have served both their countries abroad and this country very well? May we associate ourselves with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) that the whole question should be looked at again to ensure that justice is done to these public servants?

Mr. Oram: There is no doubt where the responsibility for these pensions lies, and that is with the Pakistan Government. The difficulty about the pensions arises out of the settlement with the India and Pakistan Governments at the time of independence in 1947.

Botswana

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the aid given to Botswana.

Mr. Prentice: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given by my predecessor on 6th February this year to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies), when he said that the British Government had offered to provide the Government of Botswana with up to £13 million budgetary and development aid in the three years beginning the 1st April, 1967. This offer was accepted by the Government of Botswana.—[Vol. 740, c. 233–4.]

Mr. Wall: While I welcome the generous aid given to Botswana, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that recent security difficulties have been created because of the arrest of armed infiltrators? Will he consider a further grant to enable the very efficient Botswana police force to be increased in size?

Mr. Prentice: Some part of our aid is already used for assistance to the


police force. I know that the Botswana Government are concerned about the situation to which the hon. Member refers and are taking extra steps to deal with it.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the context of the political tensions in Southern Africa we should take every opportunity to extend the aid programme to Botswana in order to give real political substance to her independence and release her from exclusive reliance upon the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Prentice: I have sympathy with that. The aid to Botswana is on a relatively generous scale. We give about 90 per cent. of the aid received by her. I recently had talks with the Vice-President of Botswana, and he expressed appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for what we are doing.

Overseas Students (Awards)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on the effect of the increase in university and other fees for students from overseas.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. I propose to introduce with effect from the academic year 1968–69 a new scheme of awards for students from the developing countries. The awards will cover full fees at universities and other institutions in this country, but not maintenance or travel or other costs. The awards will be held for an average period of two years. Funds for the scheme will be provided over and above those already allocated to overseas aid. I am inviting the universities and other bodies to discuss the details of the scheme with me.

Mr. Price: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the new scheme is a very adequate reply to the many criticisms heaped on the head of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science last January? Can he tell us how many awards will be made?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir; I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The scheme arises from the undertaking given by the ex-Secretary of State for Education and Science that we would keep the whole question under review. I

would expect about 1,000 students a year to qualify for the scheme, which means that when it is fully in operation there may be about 2,000 students in Great Britain under it.

Mr. Tilney: Since this is the best possible form of aid, can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it will cost?

Mr. Prentice: I expect it will cost about £500,000 in a full year.

South Vietnam

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid will now be sent to South Vietnam in 1968.

Mr. Prentice: The size of our medical and nursing team at the Children's Hospital at Saigon will be expanded from 11 to 18. We are providing complete X-ray, and other equipment—about £35,000 —for the new hospital block. Also as a capital grant, about £75,000 of road-making equipment.
Other projects are under study.

Mr. Goodhart: In view of the very widespread concern about casualties and damage in South Vietnam, is it not rather disgraceful that our material contribution to the relief of suffering in that country should be so small?

Mr. Prentice: In the last sentence of my reply I said that other projects were under study, and I expect that these will result in a fairly substantial increase in the next financial year in the amount of aid going to South Vietnam compared with this year.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend define the reasons why road-making equipment is being sent out? Will he give an assurance that the main assistance will be purely along the lines of medical aid, because any other aid would be considered as an interference in the situation and show that our so-called rôle of neutrality was absolutely nonsensical?

Mr. Prentice: I do not see any reason why our aid should be confined to medical aid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Projects under discussion cover other forms of aid. However, they are all projects of an economic and social nature, and none of them is directly related to the war. That is what I had in mind in my reference to road-making equipment.

Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the children's hospital. Some of us have seen the help given and appreciate it. Can he say whether one of the projects under consideration is the extension of the clinical laboratory there, which ought to go along at the same rate as the hospital?

Mr. Prentice: I have announced some extra help to the hospital. I think that our future help to the hospital and that with regard to clinical laboratories will be considered with other projects. There are many more suggestions than we can take up. However, I hope to take up some of the new ones. I agree that medical assistance is most important, and by that I mean not only actual medical assistance but helping local personnel to have a rôle in this field.

Tanzania (British Expatriate Officers' Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what further requests have been received by him from the Government of Tanzania asking Her Majesty's Government to assume responsibility for the pensions of British expatriate officers who have served in Tanganyika in the past.

Mr. Oram: None, Sir. The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on the 26th June.—[Vol. 749, c. 25.]

Mr. Tilney: Since the Minister of Finance in his Budget Statement urged that the British Government should look into the whole question and assume their proper share of the payment of pensions, should not the whole question of pensions be looked at again in respect not only of Tanzania but of all our pensioners and reduce aid accordingly?

Mr. Oram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that even in relation to one territory a suggested change in the apportionment of costs in a matter like this raises very great difficulties, not least in the case of Tanzania, because of the lack of communications but also because of the point that he mentioned in his supplementary question, that a considerable question of precedent arises out of this particular case.

Economic Aid and Assistance

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what response Her Majesty's Government propose to make to the recent official proposal of the President of the World Bank that a new international committee of experts should be set up to review the whole field of economic aid and assistance, on the lines of the Franks Committee which preceded the Marshall Plan.

Mr. Prentice: Mr. Woods' important proposal deserves close and urgent consideration, but, as Mr. Woods' speech was made only on 27th October, it is too soon for me to give a considered statement of Her Majesty's Government's views.

Mr. Howell: That response is welcome as far as it goes, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are now reaching a time of decision in the whole world structure of economic aid and assistance and it is, therefore, imperative for this country to show an early response and take a lead in meeting this initiative?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir; I welcome the general views expressed in Mr. Woods' speech. As regards the proposal itself for a panel of experts—a grand assize, as he put it—this is a matter which we are urgently considering, and I shall bear in mind the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman for as much urgency as possible.

Mr. Braine: But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at a time of growing anxiety in the developing countries about the adequacy of aid and of cynicism in the developed countries about its efficacy, there is the highest possible merit in the suggestions made by the President of the World Bank? Will he note that we on this side at least welcome that initiative and hope that the Government will take it up?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, I shall bear that view in mind. Perhaps I may add —I am sure that I carry hon. Members opposite with me in this—that, if there is to be a grand assize of this sort, it should not be a reason for postponing other decisions outstanding, for instance, on the question of I.D.A. replenishment about which we had Questions a little earlier.

Ceylon (Pensions Deductions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what representations he has made to the Government of Ceylon concerning the deductions for income tax from the pensions of former members of Her Majesty's Overseas Service which are considerably greater than the assessments on those pensioners.

Mr. Oram: The British High Commission in Colombo has been asked to make representations to the Ceylon authorities in a number of individual cases which have arisen.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that in a number of cases the delays run to years rather than months? Is not this unfair on people who served this country well when we were in charge of Ceylon?

Mr. Oram: I recognise that there have been serious delays, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are constantly making representations. We have recently sent a reminder to the High Commission in Colombo about all outstanding cases. However, we have to rely on the Ceylon authorities in the last resort to deal with the actual cases which arise.

Research and Training

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what support his Department has given to research into the basic problems of economics, administration and education which very poor countries face in endeavouring to develop their resources.

Mr. Prentice: My Department makes a grant for research and training to the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University amounting this year to £90,300. In addition, it is spending about £170,000 this year in support of research into the economic, educational and social problems of the under-developed countries as part of our programme, now running at just under £3 million, for assisting research into problems affecting development.

Mr. Clark: How much of the money being spent in Sussex and elsewhere is spent on teaching and how much is put into research? Second, are we certain that we have answers available to teach

people who come to these courses? In particular, have we experts who could take part in the kind of team suggested in Question No. 19?

Mr. Prentice: The grant for Sussex is for research and training. Without notice, I cannot break it down further, and I am not certain that a precise line could be drawn. The hon. Gentleman may be glad to know that it will be considerably increased next year as the institute gets further into its stride.

Tanzania-Zambia Railway

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what discussions his Department has had with the Zambian and Tanzanian Government on the construction of the Tanzania-Zambia railway by a British and European or American consortium rather than by the Chinese.

Mr. Prentice: None, Sir.

Mr. Clark: Is it not in the worst interests of this country, Tanzania and Zambia that the Chinese should build this railway and that large numbers of Chinese Communists should move into the areas involved, where they can cause only disruption and tension? Ought not an initiative to come from the Western world in this matter?

Mr. Prentice: I should not like, on this Question, to comment on matters which are for the Governments of those countries to decide. So far as this country is concerned, clearly, the amount of money required for this project would be right outside the scope of our present aid programme. If a consortium were formed in which we were invited to take part, we could at least consider it, though I should not like to prejudge the answer.

Sir F. Bennett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), it would be most unwise on our part to get into an economic involvement on this subject in order to meet what may prove to be transient political needs?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir; in any case, we have not been invited to give financial aid for this project by either Zambia or Tanzania, so, in a sense, the question does not arise.

Fiji (University)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress is being made concerning the university in Fiji.

Mr. Oram: Very satisfactory progress has been made with the agreement of all the Governments concerned. The interim council for the planning and construction of the university held its first meeting in September and reached decisions on a numbers of important matters. We are sending out an architect to help with the physical planning and have provided £50,000 to help convert buildings and provide the necessary equipment for the first courses, which will begin in March, 1968.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he say whether any hostels are being built for students from the other islands, as it is better for students in the Pacific Islands to go to a university in that area rather than come to this country, though they might, perhaps, come to this country for post-graduate education?

Mr. Oram: Hostel accommodation will be in the overall plan, but I should like notice of the question whether it is provided in the actual planning of this £50,000 expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Hunt Committee

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to receive the report of the Hunt Committee on the operation of investment grants, Selective Employment Tax and premiums upon grey areas such as North-East Lancashire.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the Hunt Committee on grey areas has yet begun its work; and when he expects it to report.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): I understand that the Committee's work is well under way. It is too soon to say when a report is likely to be available,

but the Committee is very conscious of the urgency of its task.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Are not long-term decisions detrimental to the grey areas being taken now owing to the clumsy division between black and white areas? Will the Minister impress upon Mr. Hunt and his colleagues that they should report in a matter of weeks rather than months?

Mr. Williams: The Committee is already deeply conscious of this need and is doing everything it can to accelerate its rate of work. In the meantime, the Department of Economic Affairs is watching the situation to see whether it will be necessary for a Minister to take any interim action.

Mr. Henig: I welcome the urgency which my right hon. Friend has attached to the establishment of the Hunt Committee, but will the Minister assure us that action will be taken, if necessary, to deal with certain of the more urgent problems in the grey areas before the Hunt Committee makes its final report?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am deeply aware of my hon. Friend's concern about his own area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that, if necessary, interim action would be taken.

Mr. Higgins: How does the Minister define a grey area?

Mr. Williams: This is what the Committee is sitting to decide.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will not my hon. Friend agree that what North-East Lancashire needs, and needs desperately and urgently, is short-term measures not only to encourage new industry to come into the area, but, equally, to discourage existing Lancashire firms from developing outside, as is happening at the moment?

Mr. Williams: This is somewhat beyond the scope of the present Question, but, of course, the real objective is to ensure that top priority is given to the redevelopment of the development areas, and against that background to do what we can for other localities.

Mr. Clegg: To what level must unemployment rise in Lancashire before any interim action is taken?

Mr. Williams: I can only repeat what I said, that we are constantly watching the situation in all areas to see whether action is required.

Mr. Barnett: Is it not a waste of time of the people concerned to have this Committee, when there is little it can tell us which existing committees, such as the North-West Economic Planning Council, do not tell us? What is going to be done while we are waiting, perhaps, two years for the report?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is far too pessimistic about the time scale. I think that it will be substantially earlier than that. It was to examine the effect of new measures as much as old measures that this Committe was set up.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that the people of Lancashire will be far from satisfied with what he has told us today? Does he know that, in the meantime, that part of the country is decaying industrially? When are we to hear from the Minister for the North what he is doing about it?

Mr. Williams: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is not my task to do so. I can only repeat that the Government's job is to ensure that the priorities are observed for the areas which have the greatest problem at the moment, and this is what our policy is geared to attain.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my hon. Friend realise that the contraction in the cotton textile industry is just as serious as that in the coal industry? Will he, therefore, recognise that urgent steps are needed to help grey areas such as the Central and East Lancashire belt?

Mr. Williams: I am aware of that. The point to be borne in mind is that we have to consider the general viability of the locality within which the decline is taking place, and there is no denying that the position of the development areas is substantially worse at the moment than that of the grey areas.

Industrial Reorganisation Corporation

Mr. Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the industrial reorganisation corporation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Joel Barnett, to ask Question No. 27.

Mr. Barnett: When I saw the Order Paper today, Sir, that was my first intimation that I had been awarded a knighthood. I understood that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not intended to do this sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell): During its first year of operations, the I.R.C. has successfuly established good working relations with industry in furtherance of its principal function of promoting industrial reorganisation. The Corporation has examined the structural problems facing various industries, and has been working in concert with many firms to bring about some measure of rationalisation. It has participated financially in a merger in the electronics industry and has, at the Government's request, made an investment in the Rootes Group. These activities have laid an excellent foundation for the Corporation's future activities.

Mr. Barnett: I understand that the new Industrial Expansion Bill is to come under a different Ministry. Would it not perhaps be helpful to have one Ministry to deal with the I.R.C. and the new Bill, because presumably the same sort of people will be dealing with the Government under both Measures?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend had better await the Bill. The I.R.C. has as its primary objective the rationalisation of industry. Nevertheless, discussions are being held with it about the precise rôle that it might play in relation to the powers conferred by the new Bill.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Why is the Bill to be handled by the Minister of Technology? Is it true that this is because the Board of Trade would have none of it?

Mr. Dell: That is a different question. This Question relates to industrial reorganisation.

National Plan

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the National Plan Mark 2.

Mr. Alan Williams: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 24th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 440.]

Mr. Mills: How is it possible to proceed with the National Plan until it is known whether we are to enter the E.E.C. or not and, if so, on what terms?

Mr. Williams: If the decision were taken that we should join the E.E.C., the initial major impact would not be felt within the period of the Plan. Other imponderables of international trade are making the base far more doubtful at the moment for devising planning techniques.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of the regional employment premium and of the amount which each region is now expected to receive.

Mr. Alan Williams: Total payments of the regional employment premium by the Exchequer to the development areas are estimated for 1968–69 to be approximately £100 million. This total is distributed as follows: Scotland £40 million, Northern £28 million, North Western £18 million, Wales £12 million and South Western £1·6 million. Under separate arrangements the Northern Ireland Government will receive £11 million in 1968–69 from the U.K. Exchequer towards the cost of the scheme.

Mr. Sheldon: How many jobs does my hon. Friend expect to see created in the first 12 months of the operation of the scheme? Can he form an estimate also of the cost per new job created?

Mr. Williams: With a new type of incentive such as this, it is difficult to make any precise calculation at this stage. It would be better to see the scheme in operation for a few months.

Mr. Higgins: How is this statement to be reconciled with the Green Paper on the regional employment premium which said that the scheme would be self-financing?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that arises out of the Question on the Order Paper. Obviously, the aim of the scheme

is to enable the regions to expand while holding inflation down in the over-heated areas, and the term "self-financing" as used in that context has not the same meaning as in the sense suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Thorne (Industrial Development)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the special measures of assistance to colliery districts by encouraging industrial development will now apply to Thorne, where the local colliery has been closed for several years causing unemployment and hardship in that area.

Mr. Alan Williams: My right hon. Friend is still consulting with regional economic planning councils about the areas to be covered by the Government's new measures.

Mr. Jeger: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a matter of extreme urgency, since in this area unemployment is about 9 per cent. and prospective employers are being actively discouraged from settling in the district?

Mr. Williams: We are aware of this and hope to be able to make a statement fairly soon.

New Development Areas

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what will be the criteria for the definition of the new development areas or special areas within the development areas.

Mr. Alan Williams: The areas selected are those where, in the absence of special measures, colliery closures are likely to cause very high levels of unemployment which would persist for at least two or three years.

Mr. Willey: Will my hon. Friend look at this again? We were much encouraged in Sunderland by the visit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and convinced him of our special difficulties. Would my hon. Friend look at other areas, apart from those with mine closures, which have particular difficulties?

Mr. Williams: The intention of the scheme is to deal with a rapid and high


rate of unemployment created by technological conditions or the decline of an industry. If similar circumstances should emerge in other industries, we would take the appropriate action.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the regional employment premium is related to the proportion of manufacturing industry workers in the development areas is one of the reasons that we still face this special development area problem in such areas as the far South-West?

Mr. Williams: The point of the premium, surely, is to enable manufacturing already existing in these areas to become more competitive and that it should act as an extra inducement to firms to move into those localities.

GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend now repudiate Sir Leslie O'Brien's statement that the Government have accepted that there must be a larger margin of unemployed than in the 1940s and 1950s?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with this in the debate on the Gracious Speech and I want to make the position clear again. We regard the present transitional level of unemployment as unacceptable. We do not seek a pool or reserve of unemployment and no one in any official position has ever suggested it.
As I explained to the House last week, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated on Tuesday, the "stop" phases of recent years and the consequent unemployment have resulted from over-heating and labour famine in the prosperous areas, where unemployment had fallen to figures around 0·5 and 0·6 per cent.
Our regional policies mean that we will be able to operate in future on much lower figures of unemployment in the development areas, where unemployment is and has been concentrated, and on a

more realistic figure in the prosperous areas.
This will mean that total national unemployment will then be no more than what is justified by the frictional movement of workers from one job to another, seasonal factors and the short-term effects of structural change.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the reported promotion of the Paymaster-General, will the Prime Minister consider appointing the Governor of the Bank of England to fill the vacancy? Alternatively, will he consider appointing a—[Interruption.]—real horse—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I have no comment to make on reports about my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General because no submission has been made to Her Majesty, but anything which might occur in future would not be dismissal but redeployment.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the speech of the Governor of the Bank of England, for which we ask repudiation, there is no reference whatever to regional policies? Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that, when the Governor, and the Chancellor, say that they have to have a larger margin of unused resources, this means more unemployed, and that is what we will not have?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The speech is not to be interpreted in that way. The Governor was not speaking in Rio de Janeiro about regional policies in this country. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is saying with authority what he thinks the Governor was talking about, I wish that, in his Motion on the Order Paper, he had not put what is quite inaccurate—that the Governor advocated a permanent pool of unemployment. In no report of the Governor's speech have I read any such suggestion. If my hon. Friend has seen a different report, I would be glad to look into it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the Prime Minister tell us simply whether the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday represents Government policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend was speaking in the regional


context. It is true that there were some interruptions which made it a little difficult for him to develop his argument, but he said exactly on Tuesday what I said in the debate the week before.

Mr. Ashley: Would the Prime Minister agree that it is misleading to speak of a general level of unemployment in view of regional variations, and would he further agree that no Member of this House has done more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tackle the real long-term problem of unemployment, which is the economic malnutrition of the regions?

The Prime Minister: I certainly pay my full tribute to my right hon. Friend, at a time of financial stringency, for the very great resources, financial and otherwise, that he has made it possible to devote to regional regeneration. I certainly agree that one cannot look on this problem except on a regional basis, as I made clear a number of times at Scarborough and elsewhere. The whole basis of our re-expansion programme is as a regional expansion programme.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Prime Minister declines either to dismiss or disown the Governor, would he agree that it is unfair to criticise the Governor for making remarks which are merely a reflection of those expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday?

The Prime Minister: Criticism of the Governor has been unfair. Critics entirely fail to take account of the tremendous contribution to our national wellbeing made by a very devoted and highly professional servant of the State.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Members on this side of the House fully applaud the concept of tackling the regions—in any case a principle upon which we were elected—we will not accept the idea of a general overall level of unemployment of about 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent. which covers the whole country? Does he realise that this is not acceptable to the Labour movement?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will agree that that is what I said in answer to the first supplementary question this afternoon. The position is, however,

that if one has a great differentiation between prosperous and other regions, then one has to take action. This is the whole history of the "stop" phases under successive Governments. One has to take action when the prosperous areas get into a state of total famine of labour, skilled and unskilled. In every case when this has been done under successive Governments, including our own, the fact that there was already a pretty chilly atmosphere in the development areas has meant that unemployment there reached figures which we regarded as intolerable.
If one can get the two more into balance, which is the purpose of our policies, one can have a somewhat higher figure in the prosperous areas—and no one could complain about that, because it would not mean any people being involuntarily unemployed, apart from the cases that I have mentioned—while the development areas would be down to a tolerable level. The closer we can bring them together the lower the national average of unemployment will be.

Mr. Heath: Will it help the Prime Minister in these circumstances to be precise? Does he adhere to his statement of July 20th last year that after the redeployment, after the reabsorption, after the regional distribution, then a pool of up to 2 per cent.—470,000—unemployed is acceptable?

The Prime Minister: Not a pool. Not as a permanent figure. I said after the redeployment. The right hon. Gentleman once, inadvertently, quoted me in a public speech as saying that I looked on this figure as permanent. I do not. When we have got the proper balance between the regions we will be able to operate on lower figures. Since the right hon. Gentleman referred to the measures of last year, it is right to say that one of the main reasons, perhaps the reason, for the present level of unemployment, is the fact that, as every hon. and right hon. Gentleman knows, business firms are much more cost-conscious than they were. They have eliminated a lot of wasteful labour practices because production is now running above last year, whereas unemployment is higher. What has happened is that a number of men who were under-employed have been dismissed by firms and this is the problem that we have to deal with.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the approximate number of unemployed the Government aims, or are likely, to establish in February, July and December of next year and in July, 1968.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 26th October to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 751, col. 557–8.]

Mr. Allaun: Does the Prime Minister intend to restore full employment, that is to say, the level obtaining before the credit squeeze of last year, which was 260,000? If he does not, is he aware that his policy will remain totally unacceptable to many Members on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. If we do not restore full employment it will be totally unacceptable to me, to my right hon. Friend and to the whole Government. As I have said, it is not possible to avoid serious balance of payments crises if in significant parts of the country one has such shortages of skilled and unskilled labour that delivery dates cannot be met and imports are sucked in. That is the situation that we are facing and have faced in the past. Equalise the regions and we can have full employment on the basis that I defined it earlier.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would the Prime Minister concede that in view of overwhelming evidence, even now, of a massive amount of mis-employment and artificially sustained employment, this overwhelming concentration on the statistically visible index of unemployment is quite unproductive?

The Prime Minister: It is true that there is still some considerable misuse of labour in industry, but everyone would pay tribute to what has been done by both sides of industry over the past year in increasing productivity, which is now rising very very rapidly indeed. In one sense this is the cause of our problem—the level of unemployment. At the same time it is the biggest reason for hope of the expansion which has now started continuing without becoming uncompetitive.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the Government's present policy inevitably mean that, for example, in London and the South-East the rate of unemployment is bound to be substantially increased, if not doubled?

The Prime Minister: What I was referring to was the fact that in some areas, and I was thinking particularly of certain Midland areas, 0·5 per cent., 0·6 per cent., is not a definition of full employment that any of us would regard as realistic, because when there are eight skilled vacancies for every skilled man, with the bottle-necks arising, obviously a higher figure will be tolerable without a single man being involuntarily unemployed?

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor's precise words on Tuesday were:
We must have a somewhat larger margin of unused capacity than we used to try to keep. That is the truth of the matter.
Is the Prime Minister aware that every explanation that he has given this afternoon is totally incompatible with this statement?[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have run into difficulties time and time again because we have too little margin of capacity in over-productive areas, which affected our overseas trade. My right hon. Friend was not referring to any national pool, and neither he nor anyone else has used the phrase "national pool" on any occasion.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that the Report recently issued about the inbuilt growth of the South-East Region, and the position in the old regional areas where unemployment is increasing while the older industries are undergoing technological change, is the fullest justification for a concentration upon the regions to help solve the unemployment problem?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. And this means the most stringent measures, not only to build up employment investment in the development areas, but also to hold back an excessive deployment of investment in the prosperous areas such as were mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sandys: Is this not just a further example of Ministerial double-talk?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman told us last week that he did not understand anything about unemployment, and it is quite clear that he does not.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since my right hon. Friend rightly lays stress on regional differentiation on this problem, and since most of the development areas depend to a great extent on coal mining, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the suspension or closure of pits for a further period until we get over the winter period and the early spring?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware, and I know of the deep concern in his own constituency and in surrounding areas, of what we have done for the difficult winter that we are facing. I am sure that he will be aware—and this will be gone into more thoroughly when our White Paper on fuel policy is available—that if one keeps pits open when they are uneconomical the total volume of coal production is more than can be burned except by heavy subsidies. We would simply be putting more coal on the ground and the result at the end of the day would be a very large expenditure of public money to keep it there.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in at least five speeches between 1962 and 1964 he absolutely condemned any policy that allowed a level of unemployment above 500,000? Is not the present policy of his Government a complete betrayal of anyone who believed in them?

The Prime Minister: I explained on 20th July, 1966, what the consequences of these necessary measures will be. I do not think that any of us actually foresaw one thing, which is the increased unemployment figure. But this in its way is a very hopeful factor for our economy because of the very great increase in productivity, based on getting more output for less manpower. This is the basis on which we can go forward for the expansion which has now begun.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, in spite of his interpretation of the statement of the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer, many of us fail to understand it? Is it our fault, the fault of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the attempt of my right hon. Friend to interpret the statement?

The Prime Minister: To judge from what my right hon. Friend said on the radio at lunch time, it is the result of my right hon. Friend not doing his homework. It is most unusual for him; I do not think that it has happened before. If he had done his homework, he would not have signed a Motion which so completely misrepresented what had been said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will now give very close study to what is a pretty difficult concept of this question of regional balance so far as the total of unemployment is concerned. When he studies it, I am sure that he will feel very much happier than he did at lunch time.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the Prime Minister still stand by his statement of 20th July, 1966, that he did not seek any policies of the kind which would bring an unemployment figure of over 800,000 to this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes. That was very clear, I think, from the answer to the first supplementary question today. I have not made—I wish that I could make, and I should like to make for the House —an estimate of what it is likely to reach during this winter. Obviously a lot depends on the weather. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made a brilliant forecast of 650,000 in 1959, and he was right almost to the last decimal point. The reason why it is not possible to make an estimate is that there has been a change in the trend in unemployment. The rise has stopped and it is difficult to make an exact forecast of what the underlying trend will be, apart from the seasonal increase due to bad weather.

Mr. Lawson: Many of us who have studied the problem of regional development have believed in and talked for a long time about the necessity of deliberate Government involvement in developing the areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having studied the speech made the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are thoroughly behind what he is endeavouring to do?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and his Department, as well as the Government as a whole, personally and fully and officially are involved in what we are doing to bring more work to the regions. My right hon. Friend and I and the Government have been pressed recently to embark on a policy of reflation. Most right hon. Gentlemen have said that that would be unwise and irresponsible. What we are doing in expansion is not a national reflation which would reproduce the old difficulties; it is a regional expansion for specific regions.

Mr. Peyton: Is it possible that the reason why the Prime Minister's right hon. and dear friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has misunderstood him is that he has not made the position crystal clear? Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us find it a little difficult to understand exactly what he means by "stop" phases when there is nothing but stop all the time?

The Prime Minister: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington is this. My right hon. Friend has been very busy today and has not had time to study what has been said in these matters—I know that he will study this matter very carefully from now on—whereas the problem about the hon. Gentleman is that we can give him the facts and arguments but we cannot give him the intellectual capacity to appreciate them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have moved on from Question Time more quickly.

LONDON DOCKS (STRIKE)

Mr. R. Carr (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he would make a statement on the position in the London docks.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): About 5,400 men are at present on unofficial strike in the Port of London out of a total registered dock labour force of over 22,000. This is nearly 500 fewer on strike than a week ago. Twenty-three ships are idle and two partially manned. About 140 are working normally.
The stoppage is confined to the Royal group and the West India and Millwall docks, which are only partially affected. It arises out of a dispute over implementation of certain clauses in the decasualisation agreement, concerning the application, to men temporarily transferred from their own employer to another, of the traditional continuity rule by which men on certain types of work normally remain on a particular job until it is finished.
The officials and lay representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and of the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers have agreed upon a common line of clarification of the agreement and the unions are preparing a joint statement for issue to their members. I understand that the employers have indicated that they are ready to discuss this matter with the unions as soon as work is resumed.
This confirms the view which I expressed to the House on 26th October, that any difficulties arising out of the application of the agreements reached by the unions and the employers as part of the decasualisation arrangements can be dealt with through the industry's negotiating machinery.
I hope, therefore, that the men on strike will recognise the desirability in their own interest of an early return to work.

Mr. Carr: While we agree with the Minister's hopes, their fulfilment is tragically long deferred. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the continuation of a substantial strike in the docks gravely affects not only our immediate export deliveries, but our prospects of future export orders.
Therefore, may I ask him whether he is aware that a continuation of the deadlock as a result of unofficial action would cause great dismay in the country and that there is a growing feeling that a new initiative, if possible within the industry, but if necessary by the Government, is becoming increasingly necessary?
Secondly, would he give the House an undertaking that if, unfortunately, the strike is not ended or clearly seen to be ending by the weekend he will make a further statement to the House on Monday?

Mr. Gunter: I immediately give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. As he knows, there is a bit of inhibition about even a Welshman speaking too much today because certain initiatives have been taken. There was a significant mass meeting this morning at which there was a certain resolution—I must confess that I do not quite understand it.
Anyhow, the T. and G.W.U. and the "blue" union, now in harmony, are distributing today the initiative which they have taken with the employers. There will be a crucial meeting at 10 o'clock in the morning, and I understand that one is to be arranged for 7.30 on Monday morning. I hope that the fact that they are meeting at 7.30 is significant of something.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: If the Minister expects us to take seriously Government professions about upholding the rule of law abroad, should not they be taking much more seriously steps to uphold the rule of law in the docks at home?

Mr. Gunter: I am not sure what is meant by that. Someone said to me, "Why do you not take more fundamental action?" I do not know what that means. If the hon. Gentleman means what I think he means, I would advise him that to put soldiers into the docks at this time would be no help at all.

Mr. Emery: Most of us have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman personally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course we have—but does he realise that we are very concerned that in this unofficial stoppage, which has been going on for much too long for the benefit of the economy, the Government should make their position more clear that they will take positive action if there is not a resumption of work in the immediate future?

Mr. Gunter: I can only repeat that I have spoken as firmly as anybody about the unofficial strike at the London docks and the irresponsibility which is causing so much damage to the economy. The hon. Gentleman should know from his experience that when one talks about doing certain things one should be very careful before getting tough that the very act of toughness does not precipitate something more.

Mr. Mawby: Is the Minister aware that everyone in the House understands all the difficulties in the dock industry and that this is not a simple question? On the other hand, is he aware that the number who are not at present engaged in employment represents about 20 per cent. of the total? Whereas the Government very quickly threatened the use of emergency powers when a rail strike was threatening, in this case it seems that everyone is still hoping and keeping his fingers crossed. Will not the time be reached when the Government have to take action?

Mr. Gunter: I really do not understand the hon. Member. The circumstances of the railway dispute were entirely different. The whole of the economy or the country's freight transport was involved. A percentage of dockers are wrongly on strike. The attitude of the Government is quite clear: that they are irresponsible and that it ought not to occur.
All I say is that in cases like this it is a matter of judgment whether, if this step is taken, the position will be made worse or, if that step is taken, it will be made better. One has to sit back and think very deeply before doing it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER—Supply [1st Allotted Day]:

Debate on a Motion to take note of the Fifth Report and the First and Second Special Reports from the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1966–67.

Prayers on the Grading of Produce Regulations relating to Apples and Pears.

TUESDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER—The first of two days' debates on Procedure.

Prayers on Amendments to Rules on Patents and Trade Marks.

WEDNESDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

THURSDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]:

Until 7 p.m. a debate on the Rights of the Teachers at Court Lees School.

Thereafter, debate on the Siting of the British Museum Library.

These topics will arise on Opposition Motions.

FRIDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the London Cab Bill and of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill.

MONDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—The proposed business will be: Remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.

Afterwards, Motion on the British European Airways Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order.

Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Foreign Secretary will make a further statement on Aden next week? Secondly, will the Government end their state of indecision on Stansted Airport in time either for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement or for the Order on Stansted to be laid?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad to reaffirm the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to inform the House as soon as he has decided the precise date of independence in South Arabia, There is nothing in this week's business statement about Stansted for next week. The Government will lay the Stansted Special Development Order as announced, but it has had to be delayed for some weeks because consideration is being given to possible runway alignments which would greatly reduce the amount of disturbance from aircraft noise in Bishop's Stortford and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing wishes to consult local authorities and other bodies about these changes in the draft Order. After that, it will be laid as soon as possible.

Mr. Heath: If I may return to the question of Aden, the Foreign Secretary said that the statement would be made at the middle of the month, and the end of next week is the middle of the month.
Will the statement definitely be made next week?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend said that he would make his statement as soon as he had decided the precise date. I do not think that there is any change in his plans in that respect.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the profound differences of opinion which obviously exist in the House about the meaning of the Governor of the Bank of England's speech about unemployment, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer persists in saying is Government policy, will the Leader of the House rearrange the business for next week to ensure that we can debate this matter at once? Would not this be a practical example of the reform in procedure advocated by my right hon. Friend to secure an early, topical and controversial debate?

Mr. Crossman: The Prime Minister has done even better, because we have had a series of lengthy interjections and altercations this afternoon at Question Time on this subject. I would not do as my hon. Friend suggests. When we discuss the amendment of Standing Order No. 9, I hope that the House will accept my suggestion that we should accept it and improve our position. No doubt, if we had already amended that Standing Order, its provisions might have been available to my hon. Friend. They are not available today or next week.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Leader of the House give time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture? Will he realise that this is particularly important in view of that part of the Report which pointed out the serious interference and hindrance which the Committee had from the Government last year?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that we are likely to find time for that. I would like to tell the hon. Member that the Treasury reply to the Agriculture Committee will be published as a White Paper in the very near future. When the House has read it, we can then reconsider whether it needs to be debated.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the Sainsbury Report on the pharmaceutical industry, so that some of us can demonstrate how it leads ineluctably to the nationalisation of that industry?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider the possibility of an early debate but I had not considered it up to now. I am, of course, aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is considering that Report in conjunction with his Bill, but I will certainly consider the possibility of a debate.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Leader of the House amplify what he said about the two days of debate on procedure and explain which matters will be dealt with on the first and second days, respectively?

Mr. Crossman: I have already put down a number of the Motions which we wish to take on the first day. I have sought to avoid the unsatisfactory kind of debate which we had last Session. It is difficult to know in advance, but I thought that we would try to sort out the less controversial Motions—in a sense, the minor recommendations of the Select Committee—and put them down on the first day. I had thought of reserving for the second day anything which I knew to be controversial and to debate such matters one by one, with, no doubt, a Division where necessary. That is to say, we would have a type of Second Reading debate on the first day, say, up to 10 o'clock and then take the Motions, hoping that the House will not spend too long before it says "Yes" or "No" to each of them.

Mr. Shinwell: In the course of next week's debate on procedure, shall we have a full explanation of the reason why morning sittings have been abandoned, why they were initiated and why there was not effective and efficient preparation in advance before they were begun? Is it not time that we had an explanation of why our time was wasted?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has anticipated that it is unlikely that the subject will not be referred to in the course of the debate next week either from the Front Bench or from the back benches.

Mr. Godber: Will the Leader of the House assist his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture by providing time for a debate on the Wise Report on smallholdings? Will he also reconsider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)? We

shall certainly wish to debate the Select Committee's Report on agriculture.

Mr. Crossman: In reply to the second point, may I say that we have these Specialist Committees and I had not assumed—but we can consider it further, perhaps, in our procedural debates —that we would regularly debate all the reports of all the Specialist Committees. When we debate the Reports of our Select Committees, we sometimes have a very small attendance, and I would want to think carefully about this. Concerning the Report in question, I suggest again that we should wait until we see the Government's reply and see whether a debate is necessary. I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Report of the Wise Committee.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend a friendly question? Is he aware that there is great public interest, not all of which is critical, in the contribution which is made to the economy by nationalised industries? Will we have an early opportunity to discuss the review of the economic and financial objectives of the nationalised industries, especially as all price increases are now referred to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend is referring, I think, to the White Paper published last week. Certainly, I will consider that. We have, I expect, before Christmas one day which is traditionally allotted to the nationalised industries. I would like to consider this matter with the Chairman of the Select Committee. We might well devote time to this extremely important White Paper.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's answer about Stansted Airport, would Ministers use the interval which the Leader of the House has indicated in studying the Report of the South-East Economic Planning Council and note the observation that such a siting would impose major difficulties on the strategic planning of the area, and come to the conclusion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue the merit of the matter now, on the Business Statement.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. I was just about, with respect, to say—that by not


laying the Order they could save a valuable day's Parliamentary business and a good deal of embarrassment to Ministers.

Mr. Crossman: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman misheard what I said. I said that my right hon. Friend would lay the Order as soon as necessary changes, which arise out of possible realignment of the airport runways, had been introduced into the Order. There is no question of the Order not being laid.

Mr. Mikardo: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), is my right hon. Friend aware that the series of interjections by the Prime Minister to which he referred did no more than make confusion worse confounded, underlining the manifest differences, at least of emphasis, between his interpretation of the Governor's speech and that of the Chancellor? Would it not be a good idea if we had a short debate, to clarify this cloudy matter?

Mr. Crossman: This is something that we could always consider, but I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it may be possible in another place upstairs that he and I might—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —in different conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh."]—to concert our views on this subject before further discussion here.

Mr. John Smith: Since it will alter the way in which Parliament and about 10,000 civil servants work, and hence will affect the whole future of government, can we please debate the Whitehall Plan before it is too late?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there is any great risk of our being too late in discussing the Whitehall Plan.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the ruling which the Leader of the House has just given that it is necessary to discuss upstairs a subject before it can be discussed in the House, will he reconsider that reply, and take into account the number of speakers who have not been able to be called in recent economic debates and the amount of representation which has been made to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and consider

having a debate in the following week, as early as possible in that week?

Mr. Crossman: If, of course, HANSARD were to show that I said it was necessary to have a debate upstairs, that would be a grossly improper remark. What I suggested was that it might be a good idea to have one, including the possibility of having a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a matter I raised last week and remind him that since this Government have been in power we have had only three days on the Floor for Welsh affairs? Can we have a day to discuss the Welsh Plan, or is the Government's intention to bury it?

Mr. Crossman: I know what I said last week, but I think that before we have the debate I would like to have the usual discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for many years there has been a debate every year on Welsh affairs. Can my right hon. Friend arrange to have one this year?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. We recently had a debate on Aberfan—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That was a separate matter.

Mr. Crossman: I quite appreciate the point. I said that I wanted to have this discussed through the usual channels before we make the decision.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is it still Government policy to block Private Members' Bills next week or later in the Session?

Mr. Crossman: I thought that this was explained in the last Session. I thought that what happened then was, if I remember rightly, that instead of there being what might be called a covert noise an overt noise was introduced, to the general satisfaction of the House. The practice will be necessary wherever it is felt that these Bills should not be given the privilege of undiscussed entry into the House. I think that this word will be used from time to time this Session, as in the last.

Mr. Dickens: Following the characteristically clear, straightforward replies of the Prime Minister on unemployment this afternoon, does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that what is involved in our request for a debate next week is nothing less than the assertion of the supremacy of Parliament over international financial institutions which have forced the Government to adopt a policy of deflation, and deliberately to create a high level of unemployment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot now enter into the merits of the matter.

Mr. Crossman: There are quite a number of assumptions and presumptions in that question, to which I cannot reply on the Business Statement. There is no chance, in the business next week, to discuss this topic. Although it cannot be discussed then, I am prepared to discuss it later.

Mr. Blaker: If the right hon. Gentleman will not arrange a debate on unemployment next week, perhaps it would help if he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to clear up the confusion left by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Crossman: I think myself that the best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman and the House to study carefully the text of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answers today, and after that, if there is any further need for elucidation, after the clarity which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) so rightly recognised in my right hon. Friend's statement, we can have further discussion.

Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the extreme concern being felt in mining communities about the future, will my right hon. Friend make an early opportunity to debate the future of the coal mining industry?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think that there will be an early opportunity. I think that the long-awaited White Paper on Fuel Policy will be published next week. I am expecting that it will be possible to find proper time after that to debate the Coal Industry borrowing Powers Order, which will afford the proper facility of a whole day in which to debate fuel policy and the mining industry.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall his answer to me last week, particularly bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said about his desire to deal with unemployment in our underdeveloped areas and his undertaking to look at the need for a debate on the South-West Planning Council Report, the Tress Report? If we cannot have it next week, please can he guarantee that we can have a debate before Christmas?

Mr. Crossman: No. I cannot guarantee a debate on that subject, but I am prepared to have this suggestion discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Moonman: In view of the rumours and anxieties among the printing unions —indeed, in Fleet Street generally—about the future of at least one national newspaper, would my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on Motion No. 2.
[That, in view of the continuing reduction in the number of national newspapers in Great Britain, and in the light of the condition of the communication industry in general, underlined by the recent Report (No. 43) of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, a Select Committee be set up to examine the probable scale of the newspaper industry for this country during the next 10 years, with reference to both the national daily and Sunday Press, and to give consideration to the experience of other countries, management-trade union relations, and the question of advertising revenue in relation to total revenue.]

Mr. Crossman: I very much doubt whether a debate in the House would be particularly welcome to the printing industry at this moment. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the whole question of the participation of this House in the consideration of the future of the industry.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this Government have been in power we have not had a debate on space, not in all that time? As it is becoming an increasingly important subject, will he give consideration perhaps to having an early debate on the Estimates Committee's Report?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter because of the formidable nature of the Report for which he is largely responsible. Certainly I will consider the possibility of a debate on the subject.

Mr. Heffer: As the debate on unemployment is bound to go on upstairs anyway. would my right hon. Friend please look once again at the situation and at the feeling which exists about the importance of having the debate to get some public clarification as early as possible of the Government's attitude to the question?

Mr. Crossman: I think that public clarification can best be done by a statement. I think we have gone a good way towards it this afternoon.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the disturbing reports that the Government are considering changing their policy in regard to the supply of certain types of military equipment to South Africa, will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of debating this fundamental change in Government policy? Are we not entitled to consider in this House yet another possibly catastrophic Government gaffe?

Mr. Crossman: We are always entitled to consider anything. No Leader of the House can stop that. But I think the question was not about what people were entitled to consider, but what was intended to be debated, and I would suggest that, if the request for a debate is on the assumption that there has been a catastrophic change of policy, this is not justified.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Leader of the House referred, quite rightly, to possibly having a debate upstairs among his hon. Friends and other so-called hon. Friends, but is he aware that as Leader of the House he has a responsibility to all parties in the House, and that the Labour Party has no prerogative about unemployment? We are just as interested, and we think that the subject should be fully explored on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Crossman: That is why I am sure that the question of a debate on unemployment is one that we can consider further through the usual channels, since both sides of the House are interested.
I am glad to hear for the first time that hon. Gentlemen opposite are.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend's answer on the siting of the third London airport indicate that the Government have now decided not to hold a further inquiry despite the facts, including that the original ground—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this topic, but he must ask now only for time to discuss it.

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter has not been the subject of an announcement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, is it not in order to clarify what exactly is the significance of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at this time?

Mr. Speaker: It may be in order to clarify it, but not at Business Question time.

Mr. Awdry: In view of the previous misunderstandings on the Government's economic policy, will the Leader of the House arrange for a joint statement to be issued by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer early next week?

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly put that suggestion to both my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Roebuck: May I revert to Motion No. 2? Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration that the possibility of a reduction in the number of newspapers is a matter of national importance and not just of importance to the printing unions and the newspaper proprietors? In view of that, will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman)?

Mr. Crossman: All I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) was that I did not think that a debate in the House in the near future would help a great deal in the difficulties of the printing unions. If I am asked whether we should take the subject as one for an early debate, I repeat that I doubt whether we should get great advantage out of an early debate, but I am willing to listen to the views of both sides of the House on whether they really want one.


We had one which I looked at with interest, but I am not sure that we need to debate the subject too often.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his attitude to a debate on Professor Tress's Report on the South-West, particularly as we are concerned about many aspects of the Report and want action from the Government?

Mr. Crossman: This is the first time I have said this at Business Question time today, but I remind hon. Members opposite that they have their own opportunity to choose topics for debate. If they feel that this subject is very important they have their own time in which to debate it.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the present struggle between A.E.I. and G.E.C., which may well affect employment in my area, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the Monopolies Commission at an early date?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider such a debate. This question was put to me in the last Session. It is a subject worth considering.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has the Government's decision to reaffirm the Stansted decision next week and to bring forward the Order been taken in the light of the fresh evidence by the Noise Abatement Society or in ignorance of it?

Mr. Cross-man: We are at Business Question time. I stretched business by announcing this. I thought that it was

for the convenience of the House to say that the Order was being laid. For further information hon. Members must go to the Ministers concerned and not to me.

BILLS PRESENTED

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Bill to make provision with respect to the maximum numbers of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and certain other judges, presented by the Attorney-General; supported by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Dick Taverne; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

LONDON CAB

Bill to extend the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe fares in respect of journeys by cab within the metropolitan police district and the City of London; to make provision for extending the length of such journeys which the driver of a cab is obliged by law to undertake; to relax restrictions on the parking of cabs and to prohibit the display on certain vehicles in that district or the City of London of signs or notices containing the word "taxi" or "cab" or certain other specified words, presented by Mr. Roy Jenkins; supported by Mr. David Ennals, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, and Mr. Stephen Swingler; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

4.5 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is now almost an established tradition that from time to time we should have before us a Bill dealing with a number of miscellaneous but important agricultural subjects. Hon. Members opposite brought forward similar Bills, the last being an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 1962.
I am not covering so many different items as there were in the 1962 Bill, but I shall also be speaking of a range of different matters which are linked only by their inclusion in the Bill. I make no apology for this. It seems to me sensible to get on as fast as we can with as many as possible of the agricultural problems which require legislation.
The Bill has four main parts. First, it will make possible new and better safeguards for the welfare of farm animals. Second, it will give a better deal to tenant farmers who lose their farms because their land is needed, for example, for urban development. Third, it will improve the methods by which river authorities raise revenue on agricultural land and will remove anomalies in the rating arrangements of the smaller drainage authorities. Those three major issues are covered in Clauses 1 to 32.
Fourth, the remainder of the Bill gives statutory authority for grants or schemes which have already been welcomed. For example, it covers in this way the stabilisation arrangements for the bacon curing industry and the new grants for field beans. It also includes in Clauses 37 to 40 miscellaneous amendments of existing legislation. That is the broad outline of the Bill.
I turn now to Part I, which deals with the welfare of livestock. For some time there has been public concern about the welfare of animals kept under intensive systems of husbandry. This led my predecessor to set up in June, 1964, a Com-

mittee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Brambell. His terms of reference were to look into the conditions in which animals are kept under such systems and advise whether standards should be set in the interests of animal welfare.
We are deeply indebted to Professor Brambell and his colleagues for the valuable pioneer work which they did in this difficult subject. I would like to record my tribute. After considering the views of all interested organisations on the recommendations of this Committee, I reported to the House on 5th August, 1966, the conclusions which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I had reached. Our decisions in these matters do not imply any criticism of the attitude of the farming community to the welfare of their livestock. I fully share the opinion of the Brambell Committee that the great majority of farmers are concerned to ensure the welfare and health of their stock.
In my earlier statement I said that we agreed that a Standing Advisory Committee should be set up. I have already announced the appointment of the Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Hewer, and it is already at work.
The Brambell Committee stressed that there was a lack of scientific knowledge and need for research, and that it was likely that its judgments would soon call for revision as knowledge was gained. It will fall to the Standing Advisory Committee in the first place to consider and advise me on the nature and extent of research that should be pursued in this field. Meantime, it would be wrong to enforce any standards involving capital expenditure when those standards themselves might need early revision. I believe that this is a sensible approach.
On some matters mandatory controls would be justified, but for the most part we propose to make a more flexible approach based on codes of practice and on advice. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not smile when I talk about flexibility. We cannot be rigid and dogmatic about these things. We need more research to achieve precision. This flexible approach is the basis of the Bill and the first three Clauses provide the essential mechanism for it.
Clause I will make it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary


distress to livestock. For the purpose of this part of the Bill livestock is defined as any animal, including birds, kept for the production of food, fur, wool or skin, or for its use in the farming of the land. The definition is related to livestock kept on agricultural land because in the Bill our object is to protect animals while being bred or reared. We already have legislation to safeguard their welfare in markets, slaughterhouses or in transit.
Our intention in this Clause is to cover distress resulting, for example, from prolonged periods of discomfort. I am sure that the House will see how difficult it is to define precisely what is meant by these terms when applied to animals. Nevertheless, we believe that along these lines we can best provide the necessary additional safeguards for farm animals.
Clause 2 will give the Government power to make regulations for livestock welfare, particularly by laying down standards for housing, environment and balanced diets. We shall also be able to take action in regard to any undesirable methods of restraining and marking animals or of interfering with the normal exercise of their senses and faculties. The powers we are seeking are wide enough to enable us to deal quickly and effectively with any new husbandry practice shown to be causing unnecessary suffering of any kind.
We think it right to have powers to deal with these matters by regulation, but for the time being regulations will be confined to one or two specific matters, such as the minimum iron content in calf feeds. We do not intend to make regulations laying down detailed standards of housing until much more research has been done.
Moreover, before introducing any regulations, the Bill requires us to consult fully, as is our normal practice, with all interested parties; and this will certainly include the farmers' organisations. This is an important safeguard, as is Clause 42, which makes the regulations subject to negative Resolution.
Clause 3 also enables the Secretary of State for Scotland and me to produce codes of practice containing advice and guidance for those responsible for looking after livestock on farms. It is on this

power that we propose to rely for the present to deal with standards of housing. The codes will, in effect, work in conjunction with Clause 1. It will not be an offence to ignore the advice given in a code, but failure to observe a provision in a code could be used as evidence in a prosecution brought under Clause 1 for causing unnecessary pain or distress.
We have asked the Advisory Committee to consider what the contents of these codes should be. As the Clause stipulates, we shall consult widely before submitting them to both Houses for approval.
The Agriculture Departments will have an important rôle to play in advising farmers and others on animal welfare matters. Much of this advice can best be given on the farm by our veterinary officers. Some of it will be contained in the codes of practice and in other advisory literature. Clause 4 will give us authority to incur expenditure on this important function.
Under Clause 5 we are extending the scope of our powers to require anaesthetics to be used in certain farm operations. At present, our powers are limited to certain prescribed operations which do not cover some of the practices which have grown up in intensive husbandry; for example, the practice of docking pigs. If we decide that anaesthetics should be used in such operations, this Clause gives us the power to make this compulsory.
The Bill contains the usual provisions on power of entry. I stress that we intend, as far as possible, to confine inspections to visits by our own veterinary staff or, possibly, their technical assistants, but we must provide for police entry in the last resort. We provide for entry by local authority officers so that they can take samples of feeding stuffs if there is a suspected deficiency in diet—since they have staff qualified for this work—but not for any other purpose.
These are the main provisions for dealing with animal welfare and I commend them to the House as a fair, pragmatic approach to a difficult problem. We strike, I suggest, a fair balance. I know that there has been a lot of controversy about this. Farmers are not inhumane. We do not want to impose unreasonable or unnecessary requirements.


On the other hand, there must be powers to prevent suffering and these powers we are taking in this part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Will the description "agricultural land" include any buildings used for the keeping of livestock? Will, say, an acre of concrete be covered by this term?

Mr. Peart: Yes, certainly, if it is used for an enterprise or business. I do not think that we need to worry about there being a loophole in this provision. I have been asked about the application of this to the individual who, for example, produces poultry for his own use—and, generally speaking, he would not be covered—but the sort of enterprise the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be covered.
Part II of the Bill will provide an important contribution to social justice for tenant farmers. More and more farm land is being taken up for new towns, for town expansions and for development of other kinds. Hon. Members know the speed of this development and the difficulties that arise in different localities. This has to be, even though we can and must go on arguing about which is the most suitable land to take. But on the main issue, the farming community accepts that development must go on in the national interest.
Nearly half our land is tenanted, and many tenant farmers in these cases have to leave all or some of their land. The acreage of rented land is slowly falling, and many of these farmers will have great difficulty in finding other land. Yet many will wish to continue in farming. There has been a strong feeling on both sides of the House that such tenants have been too poorly compensated. We are taking action to put this right.
The new measures which we are proposing will apply when agricultural land is taken for urban development, but also when it is taken for afforestation. This last is proceeding at a fair pace particularly in Scotland.
Under the Bill, landlords—whether private persons or authorities—will have to pay tenant farmers additional special resettlement payments when displacing them for non-agricultural purposes. Most hon. Members know that the present disturbance compensation is normally one year's rent but it may be up to two years'

rent. The new extra sum is four years' rent. Tenants leaving land that goes out of agricultural use will, therefore, get five, possibly six years' rent. This is a substantial increase, which is fair not only to tenant farmers but to other interests also.
These new resettlement payments are covered in Clauses 9 and 10, 12 and 13 for England and Wales and in Clauses 11 and 14 for Scotland. This is the main provision for securing justice for the tenant in these circumstances. I promised to tackle it when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), on 21st February this year. He has taken a great interest and my right hon. Friend and I are proud to redeem that promise today.
A separate problem which we deal with in the Bill is the effect on tenants of certain tenancy agreements. These agreements contain a clause allowing the landlord to resume possession of the holding or part of it, for some specified nonagricultural purpose, at less than the normal notice. These early resumptions are often at two or three months' notice. Normal notice for an agricultural tenant is of course 12 months or more. We cannot abrogate these clauses. Development must sometimes be started quickly, and it is then wholly reasonable to use them, but we can improve on the present position.
At present, the tenant loses the chance of making a year or more's profit without having any claim to compensation for the loss. Clause 15 of the Bill provides that dispossessed tenants whose tenancy agreements contain early resumption clauses shall be compensated for loss of the profits they would have made if the usual period of notice had been observed. This applies whether they are displaced by acquiring authorities or by private landlords.
Next, land drainage. Though they may seem very mundane matters, land drainage problems are very important for the land of this country and they raise important problems.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I take the opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend, on behalf of hundreds of tenant farmers at Milton Keyes, and on behalf of tenant farmers generally, for righting this injustice. As he has rightly


said, tenant farmers find great difficulty in finding new farms. While they will be grateful to the Government for giving them this kind of compensation, could my right hon. Friend give some priority of assistance to help them to find alternative farms?

Mr. Peart: That would go beyond the Bill itself. It is a much wider matter. I could not do that in a Bill of this kind.
Part III of the Bill deals with land drainage problems. The drafting of some of the Clauses is at times intricate; hon. Members will find this when we get into Committee. But our objectives are clear and straightforward. This part of the Bill deals with two problems. The first concerns the river authorities and seeks to improve the machinery which river authorities may use for raising revenue on agricultural land. The second relates to the smaller drainage authorities and sets out to remove some anomalies in their rating arrangements. In neither case is any new payment being levied on those who contribute to land drainage operations.
I take, first, the river authorities. Those authorities draw the greater part of their revenue from the general ratepayer, by precepts on local authorities. Agricultural land does not pay general rates, but the Land Drainage Act, 1961, enabled river authorities to obtain a comparable contribution from it. This took the form of drainage charges based on Schedule A assessments.
Unfortunately, river authorities found great difficulty in raising charges on the Schedule A basis. The position has become worse since Schedule A tax was abolished. As a result, only five of the 29 river authorities have raised a drainage charge on farm land. In view of the importance of the work of these authorities, I find this a disappointing result.
Clauses 17 to 25 will remedy this problem by substituting acreage for Schedule A as a basis of assessment of drainage charges. A flat rate could be unfair to the poorest land, even though the charge is relatively small. We therefore propose to exempt rough grazing land from the charge and to charge commercial woodlands at only one-fifth of the full

rate. All the interested parties are agreed that this is the most practical and equitable solution.
Clause 18 will make the general drainage charge more closely equivalent than at present to the contribution of the general ratepayer through the local authority precept. At the present rate of precept this general drainage charge will range from about 7d. to just over 1s. per acre. This change will be welcomed by farmers, particularly in North Wales, where the present method of calculation has produced an unduly high charge in their area. I am thinking, in particular, of the Gwynedd River Authority, which, I know, concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), who, with other Welsh colleagues, has pressed me on this matter.
Secondly, the Bill deals with a similar problem affecting 370 internal drainage boards. These boards operate in low-lying areas such as the Fens. Their operations are financed by drainage rates, which are also levied on agricultural land on the basis of Schedule A values. The problem here is that most Schedule A assessments have not been revised since 1935. This has given rise to serious anomalies in the distribution of the drainage rate burden. Again, now that the Schedule A tax has been abolished, drainage ratepayers can no longer appeal against their assessment.
These drainage rates are often quite substantial. It is essential, therefore, to have a more exact basis than acreage in this case. An up-to-date revaluation of agricultural land in drainage districts would be the best way out. Unfortunately, this is not practicable at present, although I hope that it will be eventually. Meanwhile, Clauses 26 to 31 of the Bill give drainage boards powers to remedy anomalies. This they can do by determining a new annual value, where this is desirable in view of changes in circumstances since the last valuation.
The revised values will, of course, have to be in line with those of comparable properties in the district. They will be determined either on the initiative of the board or at the request of the owner or occupier. I know that the Association of Drainage Authorities and the representatives of the drainage ratepayers will greatly welcome these provisions.
These, then, are the main land drainage provisions. They will, I am sure, be of considerable help to the river authorities and the internal drainage boards by increasing their resources and allowing them to provide still better service to the farming community.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: While drainage boards will greatly welcome the flexibility to amend assessments, as the Minister says, could he say whether they will have any power of retrospective correction of assessments? There are some very severe anomalies, amounting to £10 an acre. It would be desirable, if possible, for the boards to have power to take retrospective action.

Mr. Peart: I recognise that there are anomalics—I have said so, and that is why I am doing this—but the Bill does not allow power of retrospection. We would get into great difficulties if we allowed it, such as the difficulty of knowing how far to go back. I think that in the circumstances what I have done is reasonable. I know that it will be appreciated by the bodies concerned. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member, but I could not put it into the Bill.

Mr. Richard Body: Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Part III applies to urban properties as well as to agricultural holdings?

Mr. Peart: No, only to agricultural holdings. If there is any difficulty here, I shall look at it in Committee. There may be difficulty where there is a semi-rural holding, but this applies only to agricultural holdings.
Part IV of the Bill deals with the remaining subjects. I should like to mention some of the more important proposals.
Last April, I announced proposals to stabilise the returns of the bacon curing industry. It was quite clear at that time that, if we wanted to have a bacon curing industry, something had to be done. Clauses 33 and 34 give statutory authority for the proposals I then made for dealing with the industry's problem. Broadly, these take the form not of a subsidy but of payments when returns on bacon are

low and repayments when they are higher.
Our aim is that, over a period, transactions should be self balancing. This system of stabilising the returns of the industry is the best means of creating a strong and efficient bacon curing industry and these Clauses will, I am sure, be welcomed by the House.
Secondly, we are taking powers to pay grants for growing break crops for cereals. The Government announced their intention at the 1967 Annual Review to introduce a grant for field beans. We said then that the rate would be £5 an acre, beginning with the 1968 crop, and also that we would discuss with the farmers' unions the scope for development of other break crops.
The proposals for a grant on field beans have been welcomed by the industry. By taking this crop in a cereals rotation, the farmer reduces the incidence of disease and improves the fertility of the soil. The crop is also a valuable source of protein which saves imported feedingstuffs. Details of the new arrangements for field beans have been worked out in consultation with the farmers' unions. A scheme will be laid before the House as soon as the Bill becomes law. If we decide that other break crops should qualify for grant, this can be done by introducing further schemes.
Thirdly, we seek powers to amend the Agricultural and Forestry Associations Act, 1962. Our object is primarily to ensure that all the forms of cooperation which the Government wish to encourage under the Agriculture Act, 1967, will receive the benefit of the exemptions from the restrictive trade practices legislation given by the 1962 Act.
These exemptions will no longer apply only to agricultural and forestry associations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies' Acts or incorporated under the Companies Act. They will also apply to any agricultural or forestry association carrying on the kind of business prescribed in the Clause, so long as it can satisfy the appropriate Agricultural Minister that it is genuinely co-operative in character.
Moreover, the exemptions will cover agreements made by these associations


for the purpose of organising their production as distinct from their supply or marketing activities. Finally, we are making corresponding arrangements for fishing associations. We think it right to bring them into this.
There are some amendments to the legislation on plant varieties which have been shown to be desirable from experience of the working of the 1964 Act and which will help us to conform with the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. We deal with this in Clause 37 and Schedule 2. There is also an amendment of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, so that marketing schemes and regulations can be more easily applied to the Northern Ireland export trade.
Finally, Clause 39 will interest those many hon. Members who appreciate Kew Gardens. Kew is now developing its country extension at Wakehurst Place. This Clause provides the necessary powers to make regulations for the admission of the public and is welcome evidence that these magnificent gardens will soon be open.
I have completed my outline of the varied subject matters of the Bill. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House as a workmanlike and useful Measure which will contribute to the wellbeing of British agriculture.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I begin by congratulating the Minister on introducing the Bill. We have listened with care to what he has said. As he reminded us, it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, the second of the kind he has introduced since taking office. On a previous occasion, he did not agree about that title when I applied it to his Bill. But the title applied then as it does to this Bill.
Certain measures in the Bill are useful and valuable. The first part is entitled, "Welfare of Livestock". Perhaps, therefore, I may be permitted in passing to express my personal sympathy, and I am sure that of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, at the appalling outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
While I said something critical in the initial stages, I recognise that the rapid

spread of the disease had nothing to do with the decisions the right hon. Gentleman took at the time. I agree with what he has said in a Written Answer. We sympathise with the losses farmers have suffered and appreciate the hard work that his staff have undertaken. I hope that the outbreak will rapidly be contained.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. Naturally, my veterinary staff have done all they could. I shall, of course, keep the rgiht hon. Gentleman fully informed. We all hope that we shall soon see an end to the outbreak. It is a difficult problem.

Mr. Godber: I thought that it would be right, as the Bill deals with livestock, to make these comments.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Bill follows in at least some respects recommendations by the Brambell Committee, although he is not proposing, at this stage anyway, to go as far as those recommendations. But I was glad that he made it clear at the start that he agreed with one thing which appears in the Report which is not always remembered. This is the first of the recommendations, which says:
…we have concluded that the use of"—
intensive husbandry—
methods should not in itself be regarded as objectionable and may often benefit the animals;
We should remember those words because, on this subject, emotion sometimes overtakes logic. We should recognise that here is a perfectly right and proper way to bring up and house livestock, provided that certain rules of husbandry are observed, and that it is not a matter which should automatically evoke opposition.
It is important to say this because there are those who, from time to time, allow their judgment to become clouded in this respect. Without wishing to create controversy, I say this in order to confront the real issue the right hon. Gentleman has had to face and this was, I think, the purpose which led Mr. Christopher Soames to set up the Brambell Committee in the first place.
We have studied carefully the recommendations which came from the Committee, just as we have studied the statements of the Minister. But it is not much


use studying the Bill, because it does not get us very much farther. It is a permissive Bill in this respect. Clause 2 is the key Clause in relation to the new provisions.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would rely for the most part on codes of practice, which come under Clause 3. But he is taking power to make regulations which could be of a sweeping kind. I am not wholly satisfied about the safeguards that there will be against the arbitrary use of that power, because he is proposing regulations which could, under this Clause, be very wide and could have the most sweeping effect on producers.
What concerns me very much is the fact that Clause 2 is subject only to the negative Resolution procedure. It seems quite extraordinary that this Clause, which has the great strength of regulations which could destroy a man's business if those regulations were harshly drawn— I am not suggesting that this is what the Minister will do—is subject to the negative Resolution procedure only, whereas Clause 3, the purpose of which is less restrictive, is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. It seems almost as if a mistake has been made here, and I ask the Minister to look at this again between now and the Committee stage. If one were choosing one of these two Clauses for the affirmative procedure, I would have thought Clause 2 would be chosen every time. I hope that if we do not get a reply today, we shall get a firm assurance in Committee.
If regulations are to come forward, even if they come forward under the affirmative procedure, when they reach the House we have to accept or reject them in the form in which they reach us. This is always a difficulty in our Parliamentary procedure. For those reasons we wish we had more precise factors in the Bill so that we could amend them if we thought desirable. However, I recognise the difficulties of doing that because, as the Minister himself said, a change in requirements could take place. Therefore, I should like to make a suggestion which the Minister may regard as somewhat novel but to which nevertheless I ask him not to shut his mind.
The right hon. Gentleman will be having consultations with the various bodies concerned on any regulations which he may bring forward. He now has the opportunity to do something more than that. We have a Select Committee on agriculture. Is it unreasonable to suggest that that Select Committee might also have the opportunity of looking at draft regulations before they are finalised and brought before this House? This is not an unreasonable suggestion, as the interested bodies concerned with every aspect of agricultural life are entitled to see them, whereas hon. Members are not. We have not previously had this opportunity.
I am not suggesting that the Minister should now say "Yes", because this is something new, but I think that this is a reasonable and sensible suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman should consider. I take the matter no further than that at this stage, but I think it would make the acceptance of these regulations much easier and would remove some of the irritation which any Opposition feel when regulations relating to detailed matters of this kind come forward and when there is no possibility of discussing amendments to them.
We accept that it is necessary to have regulations of some sort, but we are glad that the Minister has made it clear that, for the most part, he will rely on the codes of practice under Clause 3. We shall await with interest the codes which he will be preparing, and we take note of what he has told us about the attitude which he is adopting in his general approach to the subject.
Two matters are fundamental when dealing with this question of intensive animal husbandry. First, if the right hon. Gentleman is to introduce restrictions on producers of any particular type of food in this country he must face the point which the Brambell Report stated id the sixth paragraph of its recommendations, that
Steps should be taken to ensure that the intention of this report is not prejudiced by imports of food produced under unacceptable systems.
This point is basic. If restrictions are to be put on British producers, safeguards must be brought in against unfair competition from those who produce overseas by methods which are less satisfactory.
This is essential, and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance on this point, for he did not mention it in his speech.
If the cost of food production is to go up as a result of measures which the Government may take, the consumer has got to be ready to bear the cost of that increase. The Minister must ensure that the farmer is not unreasonably placed in regard to the cost that he has to bear, and that he has the opportunity of recoupment. Those two fundamentals—the competition from overseas and a fair return to the British farmer—are the two basic factors which the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind. Having said that, we now await the proposals of the powers which he will be seeking and the regulations which he will be laying before us.
Turning to Part II of the Bill, this, as the Minister said, implements the promise he has given about an increase in compensation to tenant farmers who are dispossessed. I welcome this proposal on behalf of my hon. Friends. We believe that this is right and fair. Generally, this part of the Bill will receive warm support on this side of the House.
I should like to raise two matters arising from Part II. First, I can find nothing in this part of the Bill which makes clear the undertaking, which I understand was given originally, that any such payments would be free of tax. I had hoped that this would be spelt into the Bill. In one document that I have read, prepared by an outside body, I observe that emphasis has been laid on words in Clause 9, at line 27, namely,
…a sum to assist in the resettlement of the tenant…
This may be the answer to the point that I have raised, but it seems a rather odd way of going about it. There are those who claim that the use of these words may complicate matters. I mention this in passing. We shall want to study it at greater leisure when we come to Committee. I think it is important that it should be made clear that these payments are free of tax.
My next point also is covered by Clause 9. Subsection (2) refers to the additional sum being four times the annual rent of the holding. The rent of the holding is not always a fair assessment. If the rent has recently been

negotiated and a tenant has recently taken over, then it is a realistic rent. But there are cases where a tenant has been in possession for a long time and where the landlord has not chosen to raise the rent. Some landlords feel that they should look after their tenants, and they are reluctant to raise their rents. It is in such cases that the tenant has been in possession longest and, therefore, might suffer most if he were dispossessed.
The Minister, of course, could say that such a man has had some advantage in having had an unduly low rent. That may be so, but there is still an element here which needs to be covered. It could be covered by a provision whereby the tenant could seek arbitration to decide what a notional rent should be in relation to his holding, and he could receive his four years' rent payment on that basis. I throw that out as a suggestion as one way in which we could do what I believe the Minister wishes to be done. Perhaps he will think about it and tell us in Committee. Something of this kind should be done if we are to avoid any unfairness. Rents vary widely throughout the country and there should be some provision to ensure that this point is covered. Subject to that, and the somewhat complicated Clauses in this part of the Bill, it certainly receives our warm support.
Coming to Part III, the Minister told us that some of the Clauses were complicated. He need not have told us that. I read Clause 18 three times before I understood any of it at all, and I am not sure that I understand it all now. It is one of the most curiously drafted Clauses that I have encountered since the Slaughterhouses Bill many years ago.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to get a little redrafting done to Clause 18, because I find it very odd, particularly when he decides to multiply the quotient which he has from subsection (2,a) by a penny. That seems to be an extraordinary exercise for anyone to indulge in, because one knows the answer before one begins. I pick that out merely as one aspect of the oddness of the Clause. I ask him to try to find some way of simplifying it.
I may be sticking my neck out, but, as I understand, the Minister will have to produce a new order for every river authority every year because there will


be a change in circumstances each year. It appears from Clause 18(2) that that will be essential, so he will have to produce an immense number of orders under the Clause to provide the fairness which he is seeking to create as between the agricultural land in these drainage charge areas and the other hereditaments.
What he is trying to do in Part III is unquestionably right, because the 1961 Land Drainage Act has not worked as satisfactorily as it should have. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) can claim that he warned the House when that Act was passed that it would not work in relation to drainage charges, and he has been shown to be right. It is all hinged on the old Schedule A valuations. There was the hope, when the 1961 Bill was drafted, that we should have a reassessment for Schedule A purposes by 1965. Then a Conservative Government did away with Schedule A tax, which complicated these provisions. This Government, of course, never do away with taxes, but we used to. For this purpose, it is right to find some other way. I only hope that the way proposed here will provide a fair basis and one which will work.
As regards both the normal charge and the special charge, although we see provision for the special charge to be increased to 2s., there is one point about the general incidence of drainage charges to which I wish to draw attention. Having taken it away from the annual value and put it on an acreage basis, the Minister may say, as he has, that he is seeking to be fair in eliminating rough grazing and putting woodland only at one-fifth. Nevertheless, this is rough justice. Under annual charges, it was supposed to relate to the value of the land, but now all land will bear the same rate of charge and, the higher the upland land, the smaller its value. Therefore, the incidence is being changed, to some extent, from the lower land to the higher land.
Those of us who represent constituencies in internal drainage board areas know the importance and the high incidence of some drainage rates. Many of us have known for some time about the anomalies. The Minster was careful to refer to hon. Members who had made representations to him on drainage charges. He forgot to mention the correspondence which I have had with

him about drainage rates, in which I have been urging him to do something along the lines which he is now proposing.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is genuine unfairness at present in some of these assessments. Even now, it will take some time to iron them out. But there is the possibility here, and I hope very much that those concerned, whether they be the boards themselves or the individuals who feel hurt, will freely make use of the procedure which is laid down in Clause 26, because then there will be an opportunity for creating a fairer basis.
However, it will still not be wholly satisfactory until such time as we have the revaluation, which the Minister suggests will come along some day. That is what is really needed. Dealing with it piecemeal can remove the worst anomalies, but it cannot result in complete fairness. I hope that the revaluation will not be long delayed.
It is very important that every owner who makes a claim for a change in his valuation and who is refused a new determination should be aware of the opportunities for appeal. I do not think that the Minister mentioned the opportunities which are written into Clause 28. I hope that they will be made widely known, so that appeals can take place freely where necessary and that any aggrieved person can feel that his case has been considered by his board and by the panel set up under the general rating legislation. In that way, again this is a step forward.
Coming to Part IV, which is headed "Miscellaneous and general", I will leave for a moment the subjects of bacon and break crops and come back to them later, because I want to say a word or two on some of the other points first.
Clause 37 is concerned with amendments to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act. One or two people have felt uneasy about the provisions outlined here. I do not propose to go into them now, but, when we come to the Clause in Committee we shall seek reassurances from the Minister.
Clause 38 refers to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I was encouraged by what the Minister told us. It seems sensible that he should take the powers which he is proposing. They can be a help both


to agriculture and fisheries. When I rose to intervene earlier, he had not mentioned fisheries. I am glad that he gave us the reassurance that he did, and I welcome these provisions.
Reverting to the two subjects which I passed over, one dealing with bacon and the other with break crops, in general I would not disagree with either of his proposals. However, I am glad that beans are coming to the fore as a break crop. Ten years ago, I started to campaign for beans, not so much on the lines of a payment—and I am not sure even now whether this payment is the best way of dealing with it—but on the lines of getting new strains and varieties of beans and making bean cropping better understood by farmers.
A lot has been done by various bodies over the last few years, but the important factor is to get an effective yield. If one gets a good yield, the production of beans can stand on its own, without any grant. In the meantime, it would be useful to have a payment of some kind to get it off the ground. The production of home grown protein has a double factor in its favour, because it is a break crop as well, and I hope that it will be able to stand on its own feet eventually.
While Clauses 33 and 35 may be necessary at present, they are an indication of the way in which the policies of the present Government are not facing up to the needs of agriculture. What is needed is something much more fundamental than is provided for here. The Clauses provide a minor substitute, but what is really needed is an incentive for increased production, namely, the sort of policy which will give effective control over imports and enable agriculture to go ahead and produce the massive increase which is possible. While these Clauses help at present, they are really an admission of failure on the part of the Minister and the Government.
I notice in this weeks journal of the National Farmers' Union that,
The burden of a £1,000 million a year import bill for temperate foods is too much.
No other country accepts it; neither should we.
It is because of this that these Clauses are or would be unnecessary if this Government had an effective policy in regard to—

Mr. Peart: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be so churlish. After all, this was something that we decided upon at the Price Review. This was welcomed by the industry, and the legislation which I am putting before the House is to give it effect. We can have a wide discussion about wider policy, but that is not the purpose of the Bill. I would like to debate with the right hon. Gentleman our policies compared with Tory policies in the past.

Mr. Godber: I am not clear about the purpose of that intervention. It has not taken us much further forward.
Of course, these are the things which were produced in the Price Review and, in the context of the Minister's policies, we have to accept them as being the best, but it is because his policies in the larger sphere are failing so lamentably that we have to have these. This is my point, and until the Minister sees the light and produces effective policies we have to go along with these rather inept and small matters when in fact the industry and the country could benefit enormously from a wider view. The trouble with the Minister is that he has not got the vision. Otherwise, with those comments, we will seek to help his Bill on its way to the Statute Book, but we hope to improve and clarify it in parts.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister saying that the compensation to tenant farmers is an inept measure?

Mr. Godber: I did not say anything of the kind. I referred specifically to two Clauses. I gave him the warmest commendation on Part II of his Bill. He cannot crawl from under it with that sort of intervention. What I said was quite clear. The Minister paid me the compliment of calling me the Minister. That is merely in anticipation, I know. However, the Minister, if he reads HANSARD, will see what I said.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. David Ensor: I hope that this Bill will be commended to the House and approved generally. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for producing another piece of legislation relating to agriculture which, I am sure, will help the industry in general. On the other hand,


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), when we talk about Part I of this Bill, is right in saying that we must look at it with our heads and not our hearts. This is the part of the Bill to which I want to address my remarks.
For some time there have been problems over what is called intensive husbandry. There has been a lot of comment, difficulty and nonsense talked about it. There have been allegations of cruelty and so on and so forth. We have to look at this from a practical economic point of view. We are a small island with a large population and we have to look at the agricultural economic situation in which we find ourselves. Therefore, I would remind the House of one great thing. The poultry industry fifteen years ago was practically at nothing. Today it is an industry which has a turnover of £320 million a year. Chicken today is no longer a luxury. It is food for everybody and a great deal cheaper than beef.

Mr. William Edwards: A great deal worse.

Mr. Ensor: My hon. Friend says, "A great deal worse." That is a matter of opinion. Be that as it may, it is a very cheap meal today. This has been done by an intensive economic business which has produced an industry from nothing to £320 million in fifteen years.
Why has it been done? It has been done because no one in his right mind will suggest that we should ill-treat our birds. [Laughter.] I thought possibly that might produce laughter. I am talking about the two-legged feathered variety. No one will ill-treat his birds or animals if he depends upon them for his livelihood.
I have taken the trouble over the last few months to see it in action. I have seen the birds coming in in crates and 40 minutes later going out at the other end into the deep freeze. There is no cruelty, there is no unpleasantness, there is nothing.
I have also been in a shed where there were 50,000 laying birds all happy, in light conditions, eating, warm and comfortable. Is it really suggested that that is a worse condition than the old days when I was farming when one had miser-

able little birds under the hedge up to their crops in mud and snow and dying at the rate of about 25 per cent. a year instead of the percentage which we have today? I do not think that the present situation regarding intensive husbandry of chickens is wrong. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) knows perfectly well that it is difficult to get an animal to produce, be it a cow, a beef calf or a chicken, unless it is reasonably comfortable and happy. They just do not do it. If this business is to be made into an economic one, we must have this situation. I agree with a great amount of the Brambell Report, but one has to look at it from a realistic point of view.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this Bill forward. I do not wish to take up the time of the House tonight on any other matter, but I did want to talk about Part I of the Bill. Provided there are safeguards, which there are in this Bill, we will produce a bigger industry and more food for our people than has ever been produced before. We do not want cruelty, and under this Bill we shall see that it does not happen.

5.8 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I propose to confine most of my remarks to Part III of the Bill, because I have to recognise that, although in the famous Parliament of 1295 two hon. Members from Ely came to Parliament, Johannes Le Palfreneur and Nicolous Baret, the Isle of Ely consisted only of the so-called High Ground, not a square foot of which was more than 50 feet above sea level, the rest being swamp of various kinds. Today I am conscious that the vast majority of the area of my constituency would not be farmed at all were it not for land drainage and were it not for the work of the river authorities and the internal drainage boards.
I felt that the Minister rather passed over the work of the internal drainage boards in his opening remarks, because he referred to them as the smaller authorities. These boards in fact do a most magnificent amount of work. It is also worth remembering that it is not quite accurate, as the Minister said, to say that the majority of the precept levied by river boards falls on the local authorities such as the counties. It does not.


It falls on the internal drainage boards to a greater extent than on the counties and county boroughs. The Minister will make a great mistake, certainly in the Fenland area, if he does not pay great attention to the work done by the internal drainage boards and recognise that without them the most fertile area in the United Kingdom would probably go out of cultivation altogether.
I want to divide my remarks into two parts, the first dealing with those Clauses relating to the internal drainage boards, and the second to those which deal with the right of the river boards to make a general charge, and a special charge.
The former is more important to my constituency, and here I ought to declare an interest, though it is only an honorary one, in that I am a Vice-President of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which is the collective body representing the internal drainage boards in this country. I know that the Association greatly welcomes what is contained in the Bill. For a long time it has been pressing for the opportunity to bring its rating more nearly up to date and make the incidence of it fairer as between one occupier and another.
This is a complicated piece of legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) interrupted the Minister during his speech, perfectly understandably, but I think that the Minister gave a wrong answer. The Bill really stems from the Land Drainage Act, 1930, as amended by the 1961 Act in particular, but there was a clear distinction there between land which had a rateable value, and land which did not, and I think that this is what my hon. Friend had in mind. The land which had a current rateable value was normally not agricultural land, and the land which was agricultural was based on the Schedule A assessment. As a result of arrant cowardice over the years by the Treasury the Schedule A assessment became completely out of date, and is now a dead duck. It was inevitable, as long as the Treasury flatly refused to carry out a revaluation of the Schedule A assessments, that this would happen, and the unfortunate internal drainage boards were put in a difficult situation in trying to bring about equity amongst their rate-

payers. I therefore welcome what is in the Bill because it is a major step in the right direction.
There are, however, still one or two misgivings in the mind of the Association. The Minister rightly said that under the Bill there will be an opportunity for those who considered that the assessment made on their land was out of line with that on comparable land in the district to have it rectified, and the board will be able to do the same thing the other way, but there is some anxiety about the opportunity which will be open to an occupier to get at information to enable him to assess for himself whether his land has been fairly assessed, in the light of valuations placed on other hereditaments in the district. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that there will be a register of some sort made available as soon as possible, and that any ratepayer will be able to consult it to enable him to assess for himself the sort of values which are to obtain in his district. I am glad that the N.F.U. welcomes this part of the Bill, and considers that it will eliminate long-standing grievances. I am sure that it will go some way to help, but there is one other assurance for which I ask.
I understand that up to now the rateable value figures have been provided by the district valuers, and rating valuation officers, to the internal drainage boards to enable them to have new figures on which to work. Now that the Schedule A assessment has become so irrelevant, I understand that both the Ministry and the Inland Revenue intend that the rating valuation officers should from now on advise the internal drainage boards about suitable apportionments which they should make under the relevant Clauses of the Bill, because under this Measure the boards will be given considerable discretion in making the new valuations.
It is important that the boards should be able to get this sort of information and advice from the rating valuation officers at their request. I am not suggesting that the initiative should lie with the rating valuation officers, but with the boards. I hope that we can have an assurance about this. I gather that it has been indicated through the usual channels which are explored in this sort of exercise that that is the intention, but it would be nice to have it on the record.
I turn, now, to the other aspect of this matter, namely, the general charge and the special charge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) did me the kindness of reminding the House that when we were in Committee on the 1960 Land Drainage Bill, which of course became the 1961 Act, I forecast that the general charge would not operate effectively because the cost of collection would be so great as to make it hardly worth while, bearing in mind the limitations put on the total to be raised by a general and special charge, and therefore many of the river boards as they were then—they are now river authorities—would think it was not worth collecting.
I have been trying to look at the annual reports of as many river boards as possible, and I have discovered that for some extraordinary reason the latest available in the Library are for 1964–65. I do not know why this should be so, but it is, except in one case. The Welland and Nene Report for 1965–66 is available, and by courtesy of this authority I have also received its report for 1966–67. I think that it is the Ministry's responsibility to make these reports available to the House. I hope that somebody will be given some ginger to ensure that these reports come to the House when they are published, and we do not have to wait a year or 18 months for them.
I have been looking through the reports of the two river authorities which affect my constituency, the Nene and Welland in the North, and the River Great Ouse in the South. I notice that in the first year when an amalgamation was about to take place between the old Welland Board and the Nene Board, to become the new Riser Nene and Welland Authority, they thought that in the light of the forthcoming amalgamation it would be as well not to make a general charge, so they did not, but, having come together, even in the latest report, that for 1966–67, the authority says that it does not think it has been worthwhile. I grant that for a great deal of their length these rivers run through the Fens, as opposed to high ground—and the Minister referred to North Wales as an area where the general charge and the special charge were of considerably more importance—but it is interesting to see what the River Great

Ouse Authority has done in its area. In 1964–65 it levied a general charge at the rate of 8d. in the £, which produced £8,290. The total expenditure of the Board was £1,742,008, so the amount that came in through the general charge was not a significant one. No special charge was levied.
The right to levy a special charge was created by the 1961 Act. It was designed to get schemes financed in the upland areas, above the levels of land administered by the internal drainage boards and to try to improve upland land drainage. No board has levied a special charge, and only five of the river authorities—formerly river boards—have raised a general charge. The 1961 Act imposed a limit of 1s. on the sum of the general and special charges. The Bill raises the limit to 2s. In other words, it is an increase of 100 per cent. I hope that the Minister has consulted the Prices and Incomes Board about that!
I would have thought that in introducing the Bill the Minister would have seen fit to try to justify this substantially increased percentage if not substantially increased total amount. I had hoped that he would argue that by increasing the limit to 2s. we shall have some better upland schemes, which are really designed to improve the productivity of the land concerned, but he rather glossed over this. I hope that when we have a reply we shall be told what is the expectation from this increase. Are we to see more special schemes, and special charges relating to them, or are we to see a higher general charge which will enable a river authority to do more work on the main river and possibly include certain water courses which are not covered at present?
The Lincolnshire River Authority—a fairly new one, bringing together boards which existed separately in the past—has levied a general charge of 8½d. in the £ and its gross income was £19,306 in 1965–66, compared with £17,352 in 1964–65. The cost of collection was 21 per cent. In other words, it cost £4,093 in 1964–65 That is not a very economic exercise by any criterion.
I hope that the Bill will favour the special charge. I hope that it will lead to river authorities carrying out what I tried to get the Committee to agree to


when we were debating the 1960 Bill, and what the present Minister supported me on. I attempted to oblige river authorities to carry out surveys in their areas with a view to getting special schemes going. The Minister supported me, but I was asked by the then Minister—Mr. Christopher Soames—to withdraw my Amendment, because it was faulty in its wording. The present Minister was not prepared to accept that, and voted for the Amendment against my advice. I was immensely grateful for his enthusiasm. It showed a very bonny motive. I hope that now that the right hon. Gentleman has the Chair of office in his Department he will continue to exercise this bonny motive and will get river authorities to promote special schemes. I hope that this increase from 1s. to 2s. will enable these schemes to go ahead better than they have so far.
I am grateful to the House for having listened to me. I enjoyed very much the speech of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor). I hope that we shall find a way to get the deep litter and broiler boys to produce a chicken which has some taste. As we are going on to discuss artificial sweeteners after this, let us leave the matter there for the time being.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Haseldine: I rise to convey a word of appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the consideration which he has given to the representations that have been made about exemptions from Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. Clause 38 proposes to remove one of the several anomalies in that Act, and this is generally welcomed by the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association. The fact that it is now proposed to extend this to fishery co-operatives engaged in the business of catching or taking shell-fish is especially welcomed.
This proposed Measure recognises the interesting developments in fishery cooperatives organised through the Fisheries Organisation Society. I am sure that in this respect the House would like to know that at the end of 1965—the date of the latest published report—2,600 fishermen were organised in 46 societies among inshore fishermen in England and

Wales, and that their total turnover in fish, fishing goods, ice supplies and special services amounted to £376,000.
This is only a small amount of the total industry. Nevertheless, it is a reason for us to say a special "thank you" to my right hon. Friend for recognising the increasing part that co-operatives are playing in this industry. I understand that in 1966 a further 11 new co-operatives were formed, and that this trend is continuing, so that the report to be published fairly soon will show an even greater improvement for 1967.
My constituency has a very remote connection with agriculture, if it has any at all, but I rise as a member of the Co-operative Group to say how much we appreciate the attention that the Minister has paid. I am sure that the inshore fishermen who are turning more towards co-operation are extremely appreciative of this. Because of their traditional weaknesses they are overcoming these by the marketing of fish to the best advantage when it gets ashore.
Some doubt has been expressed as to the extent of Clause 38. The Minister went some way to removing that doubt, especially in relation to federal activities by marketing groups and packaging societies. He will no doubt amplify this tonight. I hope that he will accept that I am in a position to convey to him our sincere thanks, from a co-operative point of view, for the attention that has been paid to this matter.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill and many of its provisions, although I hope to suggest some improvements, either now or in Committee, to make the Bill even fairer than it is now. I do not know whether I shall call down the wrath of the Minister on my head if I say that I wish the Bill had dealt with the abiding problem of the farming community and that we shall see a Bill before long which means a change from the subsidy system to a system of levies. Further expansion of home markets and home production is the pre-eminent concern of agriculture today.
Before turning to compensation to tenant farmers, which I know something about, I wish to deal with the welfare of animals. I hope that the Minister


will bear in mind, as he said, that the vast majority of farmers, stockmen, feeders and others are intensely interested in the welfare of their stock. They are not cruel, but realise that badly treated stock cannot thrive. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, therefore, that most stock is well looked after.
The people we must watch are the newcomers, the big boys moving in on something which they think will show a quick profit. Some of those in the broiler industry and the intensive production of calves should be watched, because many are industrialists moving in to agriculture with no proper ideas of animal husbandry. I hope that there will not be too many inspectors and regulations, because livestock keeping is not profitable at the moment and further burdens will only make it less profitable and drive some of the smaller men out of the industry.
I absolutely agree that the charges made by river authorities should move to an acreage basis, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), I am not sure that these charges have been doing any good; they are so small and the cost of collection is so great. The drainage rates levied by the internal drainage boards are of the greatest importance to anyone in low-lying areas like much of my constituency. Some rates in my area are as much as £3 10s. an acre and even higher in other districts. Rates vary from £1 to £3 10s. just across the road, although the land on both sides is just as good. There is a great sense of unfairness here between farmers.
I agree with the Minister that the method in the Bill is second-best. I know that, in 1963, the Conservative Government instructed district valuers to begin re-assessment of the drainage districts, because my firm was one of those asked to assist. Unfortunately, because of the heavy burdens imposed on district valuers by Capital Gains Tax and other Measures of this Government, that reassessment has had to be dropped. This method only tinkers with the problem. Although these assessments are horribly out of date and need altering, giving the I.D.Bs the right to assess outstanding anomalies on their own is dangerous. Despite the appeal procedure, it seems

that no one with knowledge of land values will enter this process at any stage.
I give this a qualified welcome, but we should press for a complete re-assessment of all the land in drainage districts as soon as possible. In this respect, the Minister answered a question raised by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) inaccurately. About 18 months ago, I brought to the notice of his Department the case of a 10-acre field on which a drainage rate of £10 was formerly levied. Between 60 and 70 houses were built on it, on each of which a rate of between £7 and £10 now has to be paid. A man retiring from North London to Norfolk is surprised to learn that, in addition to his ordinary rate, he must pay this drainage rate, although the drainage board has done nothing more and spent no more money on draining the land. This is a great anomaly, and I hope that the Minister will investigate it.
Clause 20, I believe, provides that there shall be no drainage charge on land comprising less than half an acre and I hope that the internal drainage board rates on any house on such a piece of land will also be drastically reduced or done away with altogether. Land which was considered before the war unsuitable for building is now being built upon and these drainage charges, as in the case I mentioned—in which the board can collect about £600 or £700 in place of the former £10—bear hardly on occupiers of houses.
Compensation for tenant farmers is extremely welcome, and I wish that this side had introduced it long ago. This part of the Bill could be improved, however, in two ways. First, the upper limit should be raised. Previously, the minimum was one year and the maximum two years; now, the minimum is to be five years and the maximum will be six. If the same proportion had been applied, the maximum would be ten years' compensation. I do not ask for that, but it could well be raised to eight years, because, in some special cases, tenants suffer tremendous hardship. I ask the Minister to reconsider this upper limit; of course, it would have to be proved that the loss would reach that figure.
Another matter which I have discussed with one of the Ministers and about


which I have had meetings with my professional body, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, is my contention that to base the compensation on the existing rent is the wrong yardstick. This will lead to many anomalies among different tenants and could be avoided if the definition in the Agricultural Holdings Act were applied, in other words, the rent properly payable. If that were taken as the yardstick, the anomalies would disappear.
I would ask the Minister to consider these examples of such anomaly. Consider the example of a farm let seven or eight years ago where the landlord, for various reasons—sometimes tax or death duty reasons—has never asked for an increase in rent. Perhaps the rent would be £3 10s. or £4 an acre. But if the farm were let only last year, the rent might be £8 or £9 an acre, so that on a 200-acre farm there would be a difference of £4,000 between the older tenant, the man who will need the compensation most, and the new tenant, who may well be a young man who has gained the farm by his outstanding ability and who, if he is turned out, will probably be able to get another farm. The older man, whose need of the compensation will be the greater of the two, will get £4,000 less.
Another example is that of the last year or two of the tag end of a lease—perhaps a 15-year or 14-year lease under which, 13 years ago, the rent may have been only 30s. an acre whereas today it may be £8 or £9 an acre. Consider the enormous difference which that will create on a 200-acre farm. I can foresee that hon. Members will have an almost impossible task in explaining to those tenants, whose land is comparable, that one will receive a small sum of compensation and the other will receive £10,000 more.
The Minister has argued that with a low rent the tenant has been able to salt away a large sum of money. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows only too well that one does not salt away a lot of money. Tax takes care of a large amount of it, and in any case a good farmer generally ploughs back most of his money into the holding.
I turn to one or two other examples which are quite common. One tenant

may have a full repairing lease, taking upon himself the responsibility of maintaining the landlord's buildings, the roofs and the main walls. Because he does that, he pays a lower rent. Another man may not have a full repairing lease; his landlord will undertake all the repairs to the main walls and roofs and the tenant will pay a higher rent. When those two tenants are compensated the one who is paying the lower rent, because he is paying for all his landlord's repairs, will receive a far smaller sum than will the other man.
Another case, quite common in the Fens in my part of the world, is where a tenant takes it upon himself to pay all the drainage rates, both the landlord's share and the tenant's share. The differential may be 30s. an acre—not as great as the other example which I have given, but it will mean a difference of £7 or £8 an acre in compensation between one man and another. There is also the case—I know of a few—in which a tenant has carried out large capital improvements to his landlord's property, has spent £10,000 or £20,000 and has agreed with the landlord that, as a consequence, he should pay a lower rent. I admit that he will probably have a claim for those improvements at the end of the time, but the basis of the rent in calculating compensation must lead to unfairness.
It is argued that this is a difficult matter to settle and that it is difficult to determine the rent which is properly payable. Yet the basis is laid down under the Agriculture Act, and I urge that that basis be considered. All that is necessary is for the tenant or his valuer to argue with the district valuer, who has great knowledge of the proper rents in the district, which he uses as a basis of valuation for death duties. If they cannot agree, which is usually only one case in a hundred, they can go to arbitration as laid down in the Act.
In order to achieve fairness and not to make a rod for our own backs in the future, I urge that this basis of compensation, the definition of rent, be reconsidered. I hope that I have not over-laboured the point, but I believe that many farmers will feel that they are being very hardly treated, and they would not understand that this point had not been considered in the Bill if I had not emphasised it to the House.
There are good parts to this Bill, which I welcome, but they can be improved.

5.45 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I rise to speak in the debate not as a farmer or even as a Member with a constituency predominantly of rolling acres, but as the Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Animal Welfare Group. I welcome the fact that this is one of the all-party groups in the House. It is clear that among hon. Members kindness to animals is unrelated to the political convictions of the hon. Members.
I warmly welcome Part I of the Bill, and in particular Clause 1, which makes it an offence to cause or to allow livestock to suffer unnecessary pain or distress. It often used to be said that if the fox had a vote it would vote Tory—at least, that is what the Conservatives used to say. But I think that at the next election, if livestock had a vote, then, as a result of the Bill, they would definitely vote Labour.
The British rightly have a tradition of being an animal-loving nation. We see this particularly when we travel abroad. I am sure that all hon. Members find that a large part of their mail from their constituents consists of letters from animal lovers. Public concern for animal welfare is undoubtedly very strong, and if the Bill is given sufficient publicity—and I hope that it will—then it will be warmly welcomed not only by farmers but by the public.
Parliamentry progress in connection with animal welfare has been extremely slow—too slow. From the mid-1950s there has been increasing public concern at the spread of intensive livestock husbandry systems and the conditions of animals subjected to them. It was not until November, 1960, that the late John Dugdale introduced a Bill to authorise the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations for securing humane conditions and practices in connection with the rearing and keeping of animals for food production. That Bill was not even given a Second Reading in March, 1961. For many years successive Ministers have been asked to inquire into methods of rearing calves and chickens by the broiler and battery system with a view to ending unnecessary cruelty, but often they have

replied that this was protected under the Animals Act, 1911. I am quite sure, therefore, that this Bill is not introduced too soon after the last Act.
During the 1960s public concern has increased even more at these intensified methods of husbandry. The public knowledge of these methods has increased and hon. Members have been subjected to propaganda on the subject, with the result that we all awaited the Report of the Brambell Committee with great interest, hoping that it would produce forward-looking suggestions on the matter. There is no need to remind the House of the purpose for which the Brambell Committee was set up, or of its findings. The members of the Committee were eminent men highly qualified to do their job. They were unanimous in their Report, and, more than that, they recommended that their suggestions be implemented with urgency, because they were
aware of the extent of public disquiet concerning the welfare of animals kept intensively".
I very much regret that the House did not have an opportunity to debate the Report before the Bill was introduced. In such a debate, hon. Members would have had an opportunity to highlight its recommendations and add urgency to them. The Report was published two years ago, and specific recommendations were made which were as sensible and right then as they are today. My main criticism of the Bill, therefore, is that, in my view, it goes only a very little way towards implementing the Brambell recommendations, and it lacks provisions regarding specific animals, which was an essential recommendation of the Brambell Committee.
Now, a few questions of detail. There is a reference in Clause 1(1) to "agricultural land". What does the Minister mean by agricultural land, and what is non-agricultural land? Is half an acre or an acre of land around a dwelling classified as agricultural or nonagricultural land? Is any land on which animals are reared agricultural? This is an important question, because, if it were answered one way, there would be opportunities for cruelty to animals to be carried on, without control, on, say, half an acre or an acre of land.
In Clause 1(2) there is provision for the issue of licences for research by "the


Minister". Will that be the Home Secretary or the Minister of Agriculture? Third, in Clause 2(1,b) there is a reference to balanced diets for livestock. I hope that, when the codes of practice are drawn up by the Standing Committee, special attention will be paid to the use of antibiotics, hormones or other drugs and additives given to animals in their food. There is a great deal of uncertainty and concern about the long-term effects on human beings who, over a period of time, eat the flesh or products of animals which have been fed with these substances. We know far too little about it, and too little research is being done.
I welcome the Bill as, I hope, a start on improving animal welfare, not the end. I hope that it will be brought into operation without delay and that the Minister will implement the other recommendations of the Bramball Committee, proceeding with urgency and not waiting too long for further reports from the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee. The whole subject of animal welfare is of developing importance and growing concern. In the words of the Brambell Report, conditions in which animals are kept
which appear to us tolerable today may come to be considered intolerable in the future".

5.55 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: The Minister introduced the Bill with such sweet reasonableness that it would be almost churlish for anyone to criticise any of the points he made. In his opening remarks, however, the right hon. Gentleman almost apologised because this Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, the first since 1962, I think he said, covered extremely narrow ground. This is something which we all regret, although it may be understandable. When I sense the trouble which we shall all experience in rural districts as a result of the Measure which the right hon. Gentleman introduced last year, particularly in the setting up of rural development boards, and when I think of the difficulties in which we shall find ourselves when we come to grips with the setting up of a Meat Commission, I can well understand that the Minister was wise to limit the operation of this Bill to such a narrow and, probably, reasonably uncontroversial compass.
Nevertheless, in all seriousness, I regard it as a great pity that the Minister has not taken this opportunity to bring in a Bill of much wider scope, a Bill which would deal with some of the real and worrying problems facing agriculture today. It is almost incredible that, three days after the Prime Minister said at Question Time that it was absolutely certain that we should go into the Common Market, the Minister of Agriculture has put to the House a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill in which there is not one provision which does anything to help agriculture to meet the difficulties which will arise when we do go into the Common Market.
I hope that every hon. Member who comes from a hill farming constituency realises that one of the most valuable things the Minister could have done for the industry at this time would have been to make a start at least on changing the system of support for hill farmers in order to create a pattern which would be acceptable within the Common Market structure. His failure to do that, his failure to give any indication of what future support for the hill farmer will be, is a grave omission from the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the rural development boards, which he has been castigating, probably represent the very method which might be used to circumvent the restrictions in the Common Market against subsidies to hill farmers?

Sir F. Pearson: If that is to be the only reply on this great problem, I shall be only too glad to fight the next election on that very point.
Quite apart from the hill farmers, there is not a word of reference in the Bill to horticulture. No wonder the Minister apologised for having produced a Bill of extremely narrow scope.
I have not the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on the subject of drainage. Unfortunately—I wish I did not—I live on a hillside rather than in the lush fen country which he knows so well and where drainage rates are of the greatest importance. Nevertheless, in my part of the world, an incident occurred which highlighted the importance of the question of drainage and drainage rates.


We had very bad floods. Many of the secondary watercourses should have come within the purview of the drainage authority years ago, and many people would have been only too willing to pay a reasonable drainage rate to have them put in order. Those watercourses flooded and caused damage to great that I visited the Ministry and saw the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who was most helpful. I pay tribute to the Ministry for the great help it gave the farmers of the North during those difficult weeks when we suffered very severe floods. I am glad to say that the drainage authority appears to be doing a first-class job in my part of Lancashire in tackling the problem of the secondary watercourses.
I should like to make a brief comment on the additional compensation for tenant farmers. It is a most valuable provision, for which I have pressed for quite some time, and I greatly welcome it. But one or two points about it slightly worry me. I am not certain that we should draw attention to all the difficulties that may arise owing to specialist tenancy agreements, as did one of my hon. Friends. I should be prepared to see compensation as laid down, but this is obviously a matter that can be further debated in Committee.
Where privately-owned land under tenancy is compulsorily purchased by a public authority, it is the private owner who will be primarily responsible for paying the tenant compensation. What is there to ensure that he gets an equal amount from the public authority? As far as I can see, no mention is made of this in the Bill. It is all very well for us to pass generous terms of compensation for tenants and make it incumbent on the owners of the land to pay it, but at the same time we should be clearly told how the owner will recoup the money from the public authority.
We want an assurance that the sums that will have to be paid to tenant farmers will be paid by the public authority, in addition to the basic capital value of the land. There is also the question of whether the payment will be subject to tax, and I hope that the Minister will clear up this point. If the owner of the property will be paid both the basic capital value and a sum equal to the tenant's compensation, will the whole

sum be subject to Capital Gains Tax? The question of the development levy may also be very relevant.
I think that Part I of the Bill is very important, and I am dealing with it last for that reason. We all welcome provisions that will ensure that animals do not suffer and that we produce our food under the best possible conditions. The argument can be raised against the Bill's provisions that they are broad and permissive, and that in debating them we have not a clue about what the Minister really proposes to do. All those charges would be right, but I think that I prefer the Minister to have powers that look fairly strong and then hope that in the administration of a scheme there will be a grain of good sense which will keep the Orders that must be made on the right lines. That may be better than having the Minister present a large number of detailed proposals.
We must approach the subject carefully and work it out gradually, possibly taking action in some cases and leaving action elsewhere until later on. I am, therefore, not unduly worked up because, as on so many previous occasions, the Minister has presented purely permissive legislation. He introduced the Bill with eminent sweet reasonableness and we can perhaps take it that he will try to apply Part I with moderation and reason, and above all in consultation with the affected parties in the industry.
I have read the Brambell Report and consider that some parts of it are not very practical. As a Member representing a northern constituency, I felt that such an impracticable recommendation was that which said that whilst it was all right to tie up dairy cattle by the neck in winter, beef cattle should not be tied up in similar circumstances. That sort of proposal may sound all right, but it is totally impracticable. What will a man do who has a bit of grazing land and buys his cattle in January or February and ties them up for six weeks? Perhaps he cannot afford to build a court. What will the man do who has no straw? Farmers from the pastoral side of the country, in Wales and the North-West, do not grow straw, and in the market they must compete with the paper manufacturers and pay high prices. There are many people for whom the housing of beef cattle in courts,


although it may look very good on paper, is not the practical answer.
I hope that in matters like this the Minister will use discretion, and particularly consult all the interests involved before he goes further. I regret that while the Bill tackles at least two vital matters reasonably, the Minister has not faced up to a whole area of agricultural activity which could have been dealt with at the present time.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: My principal reason for intervening briefly in the debate is my interest in the Brambell proposals. When I was in Opposition, I carried on a long series of arguments with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food then in power, Mr. Christopher Soames, asking him many questions. He was very friendly to many of my queries and suggestions. On the Government Benches then were one or two hon. Members who, like myself and some of my colleagues, wanted to see a change in the way in which animals were prepared for the table. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland for making one of their first Governmental decisions when we came to power, at the end of June, 1964—in the words of the terms of reference of the Brambell Committee—
To examine the conditions in which livestock are kept under systems of intensive husbandry and to advise whether standards ought to be set in the interests of their welfare, and if so what they should be.
We have moved some distance towards our objective and the next step is being taken in this Bill. By the Measure before us Ministers will be empowered
…to make regulations … to safeguard the welfare of livestock generally, with particular reference to their housing, feeding or mutilation.
They are also empowered:
… to draw up Codes of Practice … containing advice on the welfare of livestock generally.
These are two welcome decisions, but they are not yet effective and we will have, in due course, to discuss these regulations and codes of practice. Between now and the time when they are drawn up pressure will be brought to bear on my right hon. Friends to proceed as

softly as they possibly can—both in framing the regulations and the codes of practice—so that they do not disturb certain prevailing methods of, for example, slaughter.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) I sensed a confirmation of this contention—that pressure will become active on my right hon. Friends. I hope that the Ministers will keep nearer to the recommendations of Brambell than to the advice which may be given to them from certain quarters.
While Clause 1 is merely the explanatory and financial memorandum, its wording sounds rather peculiar. It makes it an offence to cause or allow
… unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock…
and, in theory at least, all hon. Members would agree with that. However, it provides exemptions in respect of research and experiment. These two provisions, taken together, would seem to mean that we will not allow livestock to suffer unnecessary pain or distress, unless for the purpose of research and experiment. I do not believe that the Clause as a whole is meant to convey that impression.
There is an attitude prevailing today among research people that, even when conducting experiments, pain should be mitigated as much as humanly possible. When we think of pain, even in connection with the application of the Brambell provisions—and I hope that they will be applied as fully as many of my hon. Friends want to see them applied—we tend to think in terms of pain caused as a result of the breeding or rearing of animals. However, we must consider what happens when animals leave the farm and come into the possession of commercial magnates, who turn the meat into food for the table.
A new system is developing today. While we are doing our best to see that animals are executed painlessly when they cease their period of life on the farm, we must consider what happens to them when they are marched, or are taken, to the factory, where they are executed, disembowelled, cut up, cooked and appear at the exist from the factory all prepared for the table. This new process represents mass execution, mass disintegration and mass production.
Within this system there is the possibility of great cruelty. Unless everything


in the process is precisely synchronised—from the time the animal enters the factory to the time it leaves, cut up and wrapped ready for the table—something may go wrong. In this process of change from life to death, an animal might go through this food-producing cycle without having been completely and finally killed at the initial point, and that could lead to cruelty beyond conception. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friends will consider the application of the Brambell proposals with this and similar new methods of preparing food in mind.
Not long ago we had running about the countryside a little animal that was regarded as a pest. It caused trouble and spread disease, we were told, and we decided to exterminate it. We did. We wiped it out completely and with it went many of our troubles, we were told.
I am referring to the rabbit, to which a strange thing is now happening. The rabbit that we wiped out is back with us, although it is a different rabbit. The buck's coat is now very dark, nearer to the colour of the hare's coat. The doe's coat is slightly less brown. Today rabbits are beginning to thrive again—the rabbits which we were supposed to have exterminated because they were a danger to farm husbandry. Their habits have also changed in this reincarnation. No longer are they burrowing. They are living on the surface after the fashion of the hare. This is not imagination, because they have returned to the golf course on which I play when I am free.

The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. William Ross): Indeed?

Mr. Rankin: I am not thinking of the type of rabbit my right hon. Friend is thinking of. That type of rabbit never disappears.
This is a little problem of which my right hon. Friends may or may not be aware, but it shows how difficult it is to get rid of some of our friends, and I wonder whether this rabbit is going to be a pest like its predecessors or whether, during its period in another sphere, wherever that may have been, it has learnt to behave differently and, now that it has returned to earth, will be better for the period when it was not here.
I wish my right hon. Friends all speed and success in putting the Bill through all its stages, and I hope that when we

come to deal with what they propose in the regulations embracing the recommendations of the Brambell Report they will cover all the points that I think most of their hon. Friends on this side of the House would like to see absorbed into the regulations and the codes of practice.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in his natural history lesson about the rabbit. It is not one that we have learnt where we live, where the rabbit is just as much a pest as ever before and its habits are remarkably similar.
Many livestock farmers are apprehensive about Part I of the Bill. They are afraid that the regulations to control the production of livestock will add to the many difficulties which have been their burden in recent years. Parts of England are denuded of stock and one can drive on the roads of Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk mile after mile and not see a single animal in the fields or even in the yards. Yet this used to be an area famous for its stock.
The reason is obvious, certainly on this side of the House. Fatstock prices have tended to go down year after year. The food to the housewife has gone up by about 6s. 8d. in the £ in the last 10 years, but the price the farmer has been receiving for that food has gone down by 4d. in the £. This process will go on until we have a system of import control.
There is a crisis, and I use the word deliberately, in livestock production almost every year. Last year it was pigs and beef. This year it is eggs. Many egg producers are losing a great deal of money, yet they cannot gain the sympathetic ear of the Minister. It is understandable that they should fear that the Government will introduce regulations which will convert their existing serious financial losses into outright bankruptcy.
Lower prices for the farmer have forced him to intensify and to increase his yields. Methods now used in arable farming are irrelevant to the Bill but with stock these lower prices given to the farmer have been decisive. The livestock man has stayed with stock because and only because he has forced up his stocking rate. This has forced him to lay down concrete, with or without expensive


buildings, to use new kinds of feeding stuffs and, one regrets, to resort to mutilation of his stock. I am glad, therefore, that Clause 2 divides up these three different activities and draws a distinction between them.
Modern methods of intensive housing demand a much higher standard of stockmanship. If that is lacking, there is no doubt that the animals suffer. That is why I welcome Clause 3 and believe that it will be invaluable in giving instruction and guidance to many farmers.
I am glad that no one in this debate has made the point which has been made outside that animals cannot thrive and therefore cannot grow if they are kept in bad conditions and that, therefore, the farmer has the discipline of either having to improve and maintain good housing or go out of business. That may well have been so in days gone by and it would have been a cogent argument even 10 years ago. But it is no longer so because the use of drugs on our farms is now so advanced that an animal even in discomfort and even in pain can still grow well.
Intensive feeding, the second matter dealt with in Clause 2, has introduced antibiotics, hormone additives and arsenical compounds. There is no doubt that these new feeding stuffs produce astonishing results. They can enable a pig, for example, to reach pork weight 14 weeks after birth whereas that same animal might have taken 20 weeks, a few years ago.
This has given to the housewife the cheap food demanded. Yet we do get what we pay for. Cheap it may be in the short term but many people have anxieties that it will be dear food in the long term, for health is largely conditioned by what we eat and the hazards to our own health must not be overlooked.
The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) urged that there should be restrictions upon certain of these feeding stuffs and I think that most livestock producers would welcome such restrictions, provided that, if the Government were to impose any such restrictions, there was compensation in the improvement of prices for fatstock.
The third feature is mutilation. The less done of that the better. There may possibly be a case for de-beaking in some of our battery houses but it is not a pleasant thought to have one man de-beaking 1,000 hens in the course of a day. Obviously, at such speed, there must be many mistakes and a good deal of suffering to the animals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the docking of the tails of pigs as soon as he can. There can be no excuse for either of these mutilations and, in the case of pigs, it is bad stockmanship to dock them. Experts know that, if a pig resorts to tail biting, there is an indication that something is wrong usually in its diet, and should be put right.
There is one form of multilation to which the Brambell Report did not refer, and it is something which will come to the fore in the future, particularly with the accelerated growth of our fatstock. It is the age-old practice of castrating. Abroad, particularly in France and Germany, bull beef and entire pork is finding a place on the table, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the system whereby those producing bull beef and boar pork are put at a disadvantage in losing their deficiency payments.
Reluctantly, I support the right hon. Gentleman's view that these regulations are necessary. Compulsion must be used, as the only way in which one can curb two particular types of farmer. The first is that small minority who are either woefully stupid or ignorant of the basic principles of good stocksmanship. If one accepts the need for batteries, as I suppose most of us in this House do, one recognises that the vast majority are kept to a high standard.
One can still find certain examples of thoroughly bad battery houses where chickens are kept in terrible conditions. I visited one not so long ago, and it was perfectly plain that the owner thought that all was quite all right. He did not know any better and he did not want to know any better. People like that must have the sanctions of the law operating against them if they are to conform to even a minimum standard of good stocksmanship. The second kind of farmer who must be curbed is the "in and out man."
This is the man who goes to the market and hears that egg prices are up, or veal is a good thing, and then plunges in, off the deep end, committing himself heavily and little knowing what skills are needed. Every district has these farmers. Taking the country as a whole, they total a large number, sufficiently large to aggravate the cycles of production. They usually make a loss, they cause a glut on the market and, for the specialists who are trying to produce a commodity of a consistently high standard, year in and year out, they are a pestilential nuisance.
The existence of these regulations will act as a warning light to these "in and out" farmers and will have the effect of making them realise that keeping livestock is not necessarily a simple matter. They might deter some of them from plunging in where they are not wanted. As for the specialist livestock producer, he stands to gain from Part I of the Bill. I am convinced that he has nothing to fear and it will go some way towards removing the stigma of factory farming.
I find Part III almost incomprehensible, although I recognise that that may not be the fault of the right hon. Gentleman. The principle is to be applauded. Quite clearly, the present system of drainage rates, related as it is to Schedule A, is causing a number of injustices. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to a question from me during his speech, that he understood that this part related only to agricultural holdings. At a later stage I will try to convince him that those who own urban properties in areas where there is an internal drainage board can be subject to a high and harsh drainage rate.
There was only one occasion when I nearly had a heart attack and that was when I received my drainage rates for the first time, having acquired a house in the Fens. I hope that that matter will be resolved fairly and plainly in Committee. On the whole, I support the Bill and hope that it has an expeditious passage.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. William Edwards: I want to make a brief miscellany of comments on this miscellaneous Bill. I will deal, first, with that part relating to the recommendations of the Brambell Com-

mittee. I cannot see how we can comment or condemn the first part because we do not know what the Minister intends to do about this Report. The time to agree or disagree with the Minister's intentions in this respect will be when the regulations are published.
But I look at the scope which the Minister has given himself and succeeding Ministers to regulate the forms of modern husbandry. If one looks at the provision made under Clause 2, it covers any possible and conceivable kind of farming operation and every kind of activity relating to the production of anything on any farm. These are very wide powers indeed. We have no idea of what kind of regulations are to be introduced. Having said that we do not know what we are discussing, I will not hypothesise.
I want to comment upon the powers that the Minister has given himself and his agents. I listened carefully to what he said about the powers that he was conferring upon constables with regard to these regulations. I have heard Ministers doing this before. If he does not intend to allow the constables to exercise these powers why give the powers at all? This has been done by many Ministers—my right hon. Friend is not peculiar in this respect and I am not singling him out for attack. If the powers are not to be used, or should not be used, or are powers which he does not like to use, then he should not put them in the Bill.
I look upon this as a little bit of a pettifogging country attorney. If one gives these powers to a constable one has to decide who is to instigate the proceedings. I have read the Bill carefully, and I fail to see who will instigate a complaint. Who will send the constable to have a look at the farm? I speak now as someone from a farming area, from a farming family. In every country village there is a second generation suffragette who is worrying about the way in which each farmer looks after hens or cows or pigs. The village constable will be in a very difficult position if he is left as one of the people who can instigate a search and inquiry into the way in which a man is pursuing his farming.
My experience, as a farmer's son, is that the farmer does have his priorities right. In my part of Wales the farmer is


more concerned about the welfare of his stock than he is about the amenities in his farmhouse. I speak as one who had to study by the light of a paraffin lamp while the animals languished in the modern amenity of electricity. This is generally the attitude of farmers. We must be very careful, when we are legislating for an industry, that we do not try to legislate good, liberal intentions, and in doing so seriously limit an industry which must keep pace with modern developments throughout the rest of the world.
The second part of the Bill deals with land charges. May I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for their co-operation and consideration shown to the many complaints that I have received from 250 farmers who found themselves in court on a number of occasions for refusing to pay a levy made upon them by the river board.
Having said that, I speak again as a pettifogging attorney. I thought that when the excellent Leasehold Reform Bill was introduced the draftsmen of the Land Commission Bill had been given a long and well-earned holiday. I was sorry to see that they came back to draft Clause 18 of this Bill. It is an impossible Clause.
Again, there is a pattern. I do not blame Ministers; they are not the draftsmen. Perhaps it is difficult to get Parliamentary draftsmen. But surely no one can interpret the Clause and tell with certainty any farmer what he will pay or any river authority what kind of income it will get. The drafting reminds me of the inscription which I saw on a packing case: "This is the bottom of the case. It should be kept uppermost to avoid confusion."
The Minister said that the provision concerning drainage charges is to be only temporary. I know that he had very much in mind the difficulties in my area, particularly of the Gwynedd River Board, when he introduced this amending legislation into the Bill. However, whatever rate levy he makes and whatever rate assessment the Gwynedd River Board makes, the farming units in the area in which it operates are too small and too poor to give it any kind of income. Whatever may be wrong with the old system of making a calculation according to Schedule A, at least there is no difficulty about calculating the sum due. The difficulty there was in collec-

tion. In the advice which I gave, I may have contributed to the difficulty in collection.
However, with this new provision, the Gwynedd River Board will face difficulties of expense in levying the charges and in collecting them. I know that the income which it will get will be cut by nearly 50 per cent. because of the cost of collection. This will be a continuing difficulty in this area. This may sound rather petty since the Minister has cooperated and give assistance to my area, but in my part of Wales a much more radical solution is required before the aspirations of the farmers and local authorities who look to river boards for drainage improvements can be met.
We need bigger river boards in North Wales. At one time I suggested that the two river boards in North Wales—the Gwynedd River Board and the Dee and Clwyd River Board—could be merged into one large authority. There is a great deal to be said for that and also for the complete devolution of this responsibility to a development or water board responsible for all of the water resources of Wales.
While I welcome the aims of the Bill with regard to particular anomalies, I must comment on the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I look forward not to another Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, but to a comprehensive Bill which takes a new look at the whole of agricultural policy, not a Measure based on an Act passed 20 years ago, the rationale of which was based on a situation forced upon us by the Second World War. The basis of that Act go back much further than 1947.
The time has come for a comprehensive review of agricultural policy to decide where we are going and what we want to achieve. Perhaps recent events which have confirmed the Minister's doubts about our entry into Europe will force on us a comprehensive review of our agricultural policy to decide what we are trying to do and why we are subsidising. Could it be that the Minister, because of his good intentions—and he has good intentions and a good deal of sympathy for farmers in my area—in trying to maintain farming as a way of life in my constituency has wasted a great deal of public money by giving subsidies


to large farmers who can easily do without them? Three-quarters of the subsidies go into the pockets of a quarter of the farmers. Many of the subsidies in my county go into the pockets of large farmers who do not need them.
The time has come, not for another miscellaneous provisions Bill, but for a comprehensive Bill which takes a new look at agricultural policy.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Both sides of the House have given approval to the Bill. I wish to add my support of it. I do not want to detain the House long, because I know that other Members wish to speak. I shall confine my remarks to Clauses 9 and 10. I shall take up one point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and another point on Clause 10 which he touched on, but did not go into detail. I seek enlightenment from the Minister who is always anxious and able to enlighten the House on these matters.
The description in Clause 9 of the additional payment to tenants quitting agricultural holdings is curious and perhaps misleading. It refers to
… a sum to assist in the resettlement of the tenant of the amount prescribed by subsection (2)…
That makes sense when the whole holding has been taken away, but I should have thought that a large number of the cases with which the Bill attempts to deal would not concern the whole holding, but only part of it, and often a very small but perhaps important part. I take it that this phrase is used to ensure that the tenant in receipt of his compensation does not have to pay tax. If that is so, it simply implements the Government's pledge in this respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) drew attention to the anomalies which could arise if the rental was the sole basis of compensation. My right hon. Friend almost painted a picture of a tenant, who for years had enjoyed an artificially low rent because his landlord did not want to increase it, now scrambling to pay an economic rent lest he should be given notice to quit on the

ground that his farm was wanted for a new town and his compensation would be less than that of his next-door neighbour who had paid an economic rent. This is a problem. It is like the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.
While Members on both sides of the House would wish to be entirely fair to a tenant who is dispossessed, if the rate of compensation is increased a great deal more—one or two hon. Members have suggested that it should be put up to 10 years' rent—there will be a greater disincentive on the part of the landlord to let any land at all in future. He would be tempted either to take land in hand whenever any became vacant or to sell it. Whether this is what the Government want is not out of order in this debate, but it is outside the scope of the debate. Whether they wish to squeeze out the landlord and tenant system still more, I do not know. I am merely uttering a word of warning about the direction in which things may be moving.
The point on which I wish elucidation from the Minister is how compensation to the landlord is to be treated. We know that compensation for the tenant is, rightly, tax-free, if I understood the drafting correctly. But what about the landlord? Suppose the landlord has a 200-acre let farm that is to be compulsorily acquired by a local authority for a non-agricultural purpose, perhaps for the building of council houses or some industrial purpose outside a new town. He has, rightly, under the Bill to pay fairly heavy compensation to the tenant whose land is be absorbed in the new town. From the acquiring authority he gets the non-agricultural value of the 200 acres. Will that capital sum be liable for Levy under the development charge or to Capital Gains Tax? I take it that it will not.
If compensation is to be tax free to the tenant, surely it must be tax free to the landlord, otherwise there could be a ridiculous anomaly by which, if the lump sum which the landlord received from the acquiring authority for having his land compulsorily acquired was subject to Levy or Capital Gains Tax, what was left after tax might be less than he had to pay in compensation to the tenant. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman means that to happen. Perhaps he would enlighten me.
I do not follow why Clause 10 is so complicated. It took me hours to read and understand it. Admittedly, I am a layman, not a lawyer. I concluded that the only reason it was drafted in this complicated fashion was that the Government insist on including private forestry. The National Farmers' Union has rightly been campaigning for a long time for increased compensation to tenant farmers who lose their holdings for non-argricultural purposes, but I do not think the union ever thought of forestry.
I was surprised to hear from the Minister that much agricultural land in Scotland was going back to forestry. I know nothing about Scotland, but, if I may say so with all due modesty, I know something about England, and it is very rare in England for a notice to quit to be served on a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act on the ground that the farm is wanted for re-afforestation. If such a notice to quit were served, the tenant would serve a counter notice. The matter would be referred to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, and the notice to quit would not be valid unless the Tribunal decided that the farm in question was more suitable for afforestation than for agriculture. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, afforestation is not development under planning law. I do not know why the Minister specifically referred to afforestation when he introduced the Bill. It complicates the Clause more than is necessary.
Normally, a notice to quit is served in a very simple form and the tenant has a month in which to counter serve. Then it goes to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. If it is served under Section 25(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Lands Tribunal will withhold consent except for the four reasons which are given—broadly, good husbandry, sound estate management, economic research and hardship. If, on the other hand, the notice to quit is served under Section 24(2) of that Act, no counter notice can be served. Broadly, Section 24(2) covers cases known as the deadly sins—non-payment of rent, bankruptcy, bad farming, or where the land is required for non-agricultural use for which planning permission has already been obtained or for non-agricultural use where planning consent is not necessary, for example, development.
What worries me about the complicated drafting of Clause 10 is that unless the landlord, in serving notice to quit, gets the wording right under the right Section of the Act, he may find himself liable for four or six years' rent as compensation for a purpose for which the tenant is not meant to receive compensation at all. Conversely, if the tenant counter serves notice and words it wrongly, under the wrong Section, he would be debarred from the compensation to which he was fairly entitled.
To put it in a nutshell, my objection to Clause 10 is that compensation seems to depend far too much upon the technicalities of wording and assumes that both landlord and tenant always have the highest class legal advice available to them, when it ought to depend much more on what the facts are, which are easily ascertainable.
Subject to those queries about Clauses 9 and 10, I shall not detain the House further. I hope that in his reply the Minister will deal with those points, which are serious points. But I give full support and blessing to the Bill, which I think is a step in the right direction and which will do nothing but good for agriculture.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The atmosphere of rural good humour in which the Bill has been received augurs well for its acceptance by the farming community in general. It is rather better than the curate's egg in that it is fairly good in most parts.
Dealing with Part I, it is proper to refute any suggestion which has been made by some hon. Members that, were it not for the scrutiny of administrators and the control of legislation, the farming community basically would consist of rather callous and perhaps sadistic people —at least in relation to their animals. The whole record of British agriculture gives a lie to such a suggestion. It is right that everyone who has spoken in rather emotive language of the difficulties should remember that there is already a fairly ample statutory structure which considerably restricts the possibility of cruelty.
Part III of the Bill is a substantial improvement in clearing up many of the drainage rates anomalies. Nevertheless,


there is a case for considering whether much more finance should come from the central Treasury and less of the burden should be borne locally. Partly, this problem can be absorbed by the setting up of development boards and other bodies which are charged with the development of rural areas, but it is obvious that the local burden is too heavy in many cases.
I am horrified by the complex conundrums and calculations about drainage rates which are contained in Part III. This offers a lucrative paradise for lawyers and an affluent source of worry to hon. Members who will have to explain to distraught constituents exactly how their charge has been made up. I think that it would be very difficult to explain to some constituents who live in physically elevated positions and are never imperilled unless there be some flood of Old Testament dimensions that they should bear any such charge at all. There is some echo here of a feudal pattern of a former age when a liability was spread amongst the people at large on a per capita basis. I think that this is a crudity which our sophisticated society may be able to amend before very long.
I heartily congratulate the Minister on the scales of compensation contained in Part II of the Bill. Although these scales are not as munificent as certain bodies had advocated before the Bill was published, nevertheless, I am sure that most farmers in their innermost conscience would agree that they are just.
I would, however, make the point that I believe that the scope of increase is much too restricted. Is there any real case for saying that a high compensation should be paid for a tenant farmer who is dispossessed of land put to a nonagricultural use, but a much lower compensation should be paid if he still retains it as farming land? I doubt whether tenant farmers would be willing to make such a nice, fastidious distinction. If the case for raising the levels of compensation was need, then why is it there was no higher compensation paid, for example, in a case where the tenancy has been terminated owing to the death of the original tenant?
I think that this is the most deserving of all cases whether the consideration

be need or justice. I had, indeed, hoped that the Minister would have gone very much further on this matter, and would have taken this opportunity to grasp the nettle, and would have brought about a reform of the law which would have been historic in this connection. I have raised this matter before. I mentioned it in my maiden speech in this House about 18 months ago, and the House, I am sure, is well aware of the anomaly which exists.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has already alluded to the seven deadly sins in Section 24(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The point must be stressed and restressed that six of the seven deadly sins cover cases where either the public interest clearly demands that the tenancy should be surrendered or where the farmer by his own default or by his own deliberate act has brought about his own downfall.
The seventh is a case of a totally different nature, and that is where the accident of death has occurred. I think that there is here a lacuna in the law of agricultural tenancies. Students of social history will remember with horror and with shock the cases in past times when it was possible for a tenant to be ejected from his tenancy at the merest whim of his landlord, sometimes for having shot a hare, sometimes for having refused to vote for a candidate of the landlord's choice.
The general belief is that the 1948 Act is a great charter for the tenant farmer and has completely changed the situation, and it has, of course, with this one exception of the case of a tenancy terminated by the death of the original tenant.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which really rather reinforces mine. If the tenancy did not expire on the death of the tenant, no landlord would let any land: he would take it in hand or sell it.

Mr. Morgan: I concede that it might be very difficult here to do justice both to the landlord and to the tenant, but I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in developing my argument on this matter. After all, this is a matter which involves about one-third of the farmers of the


United Kingdom farming about 45 per cent. of our total agricultural land. None of them has any certainty, like the rest of us, over his life.
I maintain that this case rests upon two grounds. First of all, there is the economic ground. It has been said that for a person who farms well he must farm in such a way as if he assumes he is to live for ever. If a person knows there is a possibility that all the toil, the capital and the hope that he has put into his land may all be lost at the instant of death, which can happen at any time, that is not conducive to the best investment on the tenant's part. Very often we get the situation of old men, in their seventies or eighties, or even older, being nominally the tenants of farms, when we know that the active farming is carried on by their sons or nephews or even perhaps their grandsons.
Secondly, I feel that there is here a radical case. After all, if we look upon the question of tenancies under the law of England—and Scotland, for that matter —we see that there is a progressiveness, which has been brought about by Governments of both Right and Left. In 1954, there was security of tenure won for the business tenant. In 1965, there was renewed and amplified the security for the ordinary domestic tenant for his own life and for the lives of persons of his near family living with him. In 1967, we passed the Leasehold Reform Act, and there again was security for the leaseholder.
I feel that the failure to protect the agricultural tenant in this respect does represent an anomaly, a blind spot, in the law. I also raised this matter, as the Minister will remember, at the end of our deliberations in Committee on the Agriculture Bill, and I was generously informed by the Minister that although that Bill was not the appropriate place for such a reform to be contained, nevertheless, the matter would be given his urgent consideration at a later date. I had hoped that he would have seen fit, as I say, to contain it in this legislation. It may be that he has in mind a new landlord and tenant Bill. I sincerely trust that that will be the case.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this as a matter of great urgency, a matter which affects over 150,000

farmers in the United Kingdom. I am certain that I have not to stress what it means to them as farmers, as individuals, to have the whole of their families' livelihood in the balance, turning upon the absolute imponderable of life and death. I have had the experience during the past few weeks of having to discuss with many farmers the risks—the very remote risks—to their security brought about by the establishment of a rural development board.
Despite the very exaggerated language of the opponents of those boards, it is perfectly obvious that compulsory powers would only be used in the most unique situations, if at all, but, nevertheless, a very real fear has been manifested by hundreds if not thousands of farmers in Mid-Wales. The dangers that their tenancies face under section 24(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act is a thousand times greater, and I hope that the Minister will consider that here is an urgent economic and a moral case for changing the law. I am sure that there will be opposition from sectional interests. No piece of pioneering legislation has ever been possible without such objections, but I am sure, too, that the Minister has a sufficiency of radical spirit to consider that this is his clear duty in this matter.

7.10 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I feel certain that the part of this Bill which will be with us and cause us the most trouble in the future is Part I.
In many ways, the underlying causes of the need for legislation come from the squeeze which is being put all the time on agricultural profits. For example, the reason people seek to put a number of birds into a poultry cage is because they have an urgent need to cut down the cost of supervision of their livestock; and it is not only with stock which is housed in artificial conditions that this happens. If the price structure for farming is such that a farmer must dispense with the services of one or two shepherds and run a hill farm with one where three did the work before, the supervision which the stock gets is that much less. There is cruelty in a squeeze on profits from the land just as there is in the case of animals.
Taking this year alone, wages awards since the review of prices have cost the industry £15 million. The extra cost of


fuel, electricity, feeding stuffs and the Bank Rate have amounted to about another £18 million, which, as we have seen today, is now to increase. All this means that about £33 million has been added to farmers' costs this year.
It is this that makes people seek ways and means of keeping the maximum livestock with the fewest people. In general, farmers look after their stock very well, and, in looking at legislation under the Brambell recommendations, we must be careful not to allow emotions to come in too much. Animals are conditioned by their environment. I go to Australia quite a lot in connection with farming, and there is no doubt that the type of beef cattle which have to range in the Northern Territories have legs half as long again as the types one finds in counties like Leicestershire. Even in Britain, there is a similar variation. The types of cattle to be found in the hills of Wales and Scotland are different from those bred in the South. A hen is a bird which was expected to fly and walk about. If it is kept in such a way that it never goes out of doors, over many generations that will have an effect on the type of bird produced.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Scottish Office in past months about the impact of poultry farming in my part of Scotland. I was interested in the welfare of those other people who were keeping poultry and who were likely to be displaced. There, too, we have to be careful to guard against emotion when we are framing regulations, simply because an enterprise is very big. Unless we are careful, many of us tend to accept a farm with one battery house but to be rather opposed to a farm with 35 such houses. There can be no justification for it. There can be only one rule for the large unit and the small unit alike.
What is likely to happen is that, in framing regulations, with the rate of scientific knowledge available, a new type of enterprise will come into being and the buildings put up for it will be years in advance of those put up only a few years ago. What, then, is to happen to people who committed themselves to large capital sums for buildings which have become below standard compared with buildings put up to the right stan

dard with the aid of a Government award? It is a difficult problem.
The Minister is in a real difficulty about the conditions of livestock abroad compared with this country. A few years ago, I went to Denmark, where practically all the breeding sows are tied by the neck in stalls. If the Brambell Committee recommends that dairy cows could be tied by the neck, but not beef cows, what is to be done about importing bacon from Denmark, where all sows are tied by the neck? We have no means of ensuring that the Danes change their methods of agriculture, and, in framing regulations, we have to be careful to ensure fair play.
However, I agree with what the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said about the use of antibiotics in feeding. While it is right that we should use scientific advances to help feed our animals in the most efficient way, we have made a good many mistakes in the past and perhaps been given misleading information by scientists. As an example of that, recently I went to the Island of Rum, under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy. On the island, there are two or three pairs of golden eagles. It has been discovered this year that the eagles' eggs are infertile.
The main diet of the eagles is fish, and the antibiotic or whatever it is which has got into the fish must have been washed down from the land years before and is now present in the sea. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come, come."] I am told by scientists that this is so. The eagles eat the fish, the fish have eaten chemicals washed down into the sea, and the eagles' eggs are infertile as a result.

Mr. Peter Mills: My hon. Friend will be infertile soon!

Sir J. Gilmour: Fortunately, my family has now grown up, so I am not unduly worried about that.
The Minister will find great difficulty in framing regulations, and the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) about trying to help in Committee is worth considering.
Everyone in Scotland connected with farming and land owning welcomes the provisions in Part II about extra compensation for tenants. I am not certain how it will affect forestry. Under the


existing level of planting grant, it would be difficult for an owner to pay five years' compensation when repossessing land for afforestation if he proposed to plant the land and produce at a profit. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland consider adding provisions to the Bill which will allow tenant farmers to plant trees and claim compensation at the end of their tenancies?
If they were able to plant woods and shelter belts, which I suppose, could become the tenants' improvements under Section 1(2) of the 1949 Act, no doubt a tenant would have to give notice to his landlord that he wished to make such a planting. The landlord could object, and the matter could go to the Land Court for compensation to be fixed if the landlord suffered a specific ill as a result.
This is something which is of importance to Scotland, where the Prime Minister announced recently that he thought that it would be right for extra plantations to be made. This is reinforced by an article which I read in the journal of the National Farmers Union, which described an 185-acre farm in Sweden where the farmer spent two-thirds of his time working on the farm and one-third in the woodlands, but drew 60 per cent. of his income from forestry and 40 per cent. from farming. There are many parts of Scotland where the integration of farming and forestry in certain areas could go a long way to help, and if consideration could be given to the inclusion of a Clause which would allow attempts to do this it would be an advantage.
Another aspect which might also come into this section is whether the Secretary of State for Scotland feels that he is really certain that the sheep stock valuations, which were adjusted in the 1963 Act, are as good as they might be.
Part III does not apply to Scotland, so I can go on to Part IV. I said at the start that the squeeze against farming profits was apt to cause cruelty not only to animals but to the farm. This is really the reason behind the idea for paying a subsidy for a break crop, because people have been forced to continue cereal growing as the only way to keep their heads above water. This squeeze, therefore, forces them to run down the fertility of the land. In other words, the squeeze is

causing a hardship on one of our basic assets—the land which we have inherited and have to pass on.
The introduction of the break crop is a step in the right direction, but I do not see that the growing of beans will be of any great help in Scotland, because much of Scotland where cereals are grown is not really suitable for the growing of beans. It may be that the growing of roots and rape will be included, because they are not specifically excluded in Clause 35, which governs the payment of a grant in respect of break crops. I ask the Secretary of State whether sugar beet should not be an exception in Scotland, because, in the opinion of the National Farmers' Union, this is one of the best break crops for Scottish conditions.
It is also something which fits in, because we have a sugar beet factory which is struggling for its acreage. Therefore, it fits in with the general pattern of what is necessary to maintain employment. The Secretary of State knows that the factory acreage in Scotland could be built up to about 16,000 acres and this would be a charge of, at most, £80,000 a year by way of extra encouragement for the growing of sugar beet in Scotland. This will ensure the jobs of the 300 or 400 people who are directly employed in the sugar beet industry in Scotland in an area which suffers particularly as a result of the Michael colliery disaster with the possibility of the loss of 2,000 male jobs. To replace this would cost a great deal of money, so I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what crops under Scottish conditions he thinks will qualify for the payment of the £5 per acre of break crop.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to extending this for the growing of sugar beet as this is something which would be of real help to Scotland.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I intervene briefly to commend the Bill to the House. We are all grateful for many of its provisions.
Part I deals with the treatment of animals and their preparation for market. We are all concerned that this treatment should be humane and that the animals should not suffer any cruelty, but there is a great deal of undue public agitation


about what happens to farming stock prepared on the farm for market. Anyone who has experience of preparing cattle on the farms knows that if the animals are ill-treated and uncomfortable they will not thrive and will not bring much profit to the farmer. It is essential that a beast or poultry, to do well, must be living under reasonably content conditions.
I am concerned particularly about the movement of cattle throughout the country, and especially the export of live cattle. Whether trucked by road or by rail, cattle very often have a rough time and can arrive at the slaughterhouse or on the farm in a very bad condition. Bad conditions prevail more in the transport of animals than on the farm.
I am worried about the right of entry of a constable on to a farm at any time. Under certain conditions, a farmer might find he could not escape prosecution at some time in a year in the process of preparing cattle for market. There could be occasions of infringement of the law relating to batteries or pigs or dairy cows. We have to be very careful how we conduct our house. If we give too much freedom to constables or others, they could make a farmer's life very difficult.
I agree that we should take some measures, but there should be measures to protect the animal life from some of the maltreatment that some of us remember of 40 or 50 years ago. Very often, under that treatment, the food coming on to the market was of a very low quality because the farmer did not treat his animals well, and sometimes slaughtered them under conditions which were anything but clean and hygienic. These two things go together. Looking at it as a whole, I am very pleased with Part I dealing with the welfare of animals, but at some time in the future we may get some pretty nasty cases if constables have the right of entry at any time on to a farmer's property.
I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) about the break crop. This is important. I have always thought that in sustaining the farmer we are in effect sustaining the capital assets of the nation. We of this generation are not the owners of the earth upon which we are living. We are its tenants during our lifetime. We in-

herited it from a previous generation and we have to pass it on to another generation. Therefore, it is our duty, whether we are farmers or not, to do everything that we can to sustain the value of that on which the next generation has to live, whether in this country or anywhere in the world.
This is a charge on all of us. We are tenants, but for our lifetime only. We are not the absolute owners of the earth on which we are living. Therefore, it is our duty to do all that we can to help the farmer to get the maximum production out of the land without having to improverish it. If any Government pursues any policies that force the farmer to bleed the land in order to make a living, to pay his debts to his banker and to pay all the charges on the land, we are doing a disservice to agriculture and to the maintenance of the value of land, and that is a bad thing to do. I would make considerable contributions to help agriculture to produce the best quality and the maximum supply of food while at the same time preserving the value of the land.
I think that I can speak for most of the Scottish Members in saying that farmers in Scotland will welcome Part II, which provides for increased compensation to tenant farmers. If I remember rightly, under the 1961 Act—and I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend does not seem to have made any provision to amend it—tenant farmers were deprived of their security of tenure. If the farmer died, his son had no right to the tenure of the farm. I would have liked to see, coupled with the increased compensation to be paid to tenant farmers, that Act amended, and the son of a small tenant farmer in Scotland allowed to inherit the farm on the death of his father. I do not think that we should allow the farm to revert to the landowner and have it put out to auction as it were to be taken over by the man who can pay the highest rent.
Farming is not a matter of looking after land for one or two years. It is a long-term effort. When a man farms land, he puts all his capital and resources into it, and often works on credit from the bank. It is a long-term way of life. A man cannot nip in and out of farming, as one can nip in and out of shop premises in London or any other big city. It is important to give the maximum


security of tenure to the good farmer. I remember, when we were discussing the 1961 Act, regretting that tenant farmers were to be deprived of the security which the 1947 Act had given them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I am not as happy as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was about Part II of the Bill which deals with the compensation to be paid to tenant farmers. I think that the House is aware that a new town is being built in my constituency. About 40 tenant farmers will be affected by it. We know the formula under which this compensation will be calculated, but I gather from the Bill that it will not be paid retrospectively. I do not know whether it is clearly understood that when a new town corporation starts developing an area it takes over the land gradually. It does not necessarily acquire all the land it needs at once, and it may be that some tenant farmers whose land has been taken over, or may be before the Bill becomes an Act, will not get this extra compensation. I hope that the Minister will consider this.
Under the terms of the Bill, compensation to a tenant farmer will be paid by the landlord. This does not seem to tally with the statement of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Speaking during the Committee stage of the New Towns Bill, he said:
I have been asked about the tenant farmers and I wish to put on record my respect for those who have spoken.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that one or two hon. Members
reminded us that we are talking not about huge landowners with vested estates but of humble men who have tilled the land and done a first-class job for Britain … The existing law, Section 22 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 1963, provides discretionary payments to owners and occupiers and tenants on agricultural land on account of removal expenses … I want to put it on record that we do not know of complaints by owners that these payments are unsatisfactory, but we do know that tenants in particular are not at all happy. The Committee should know that this is one of the matters which is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I undertake to ensure that the remarks which hon. Members have made today are reported

to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1752–3.]
The hon. Gentleman then said that the Minister was having discussions and would make an announcement in due course. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know of any complaints by owners, but I assure the House that there will be violent complaints if the compensation paid to the tenant is taken out of the compensation paid to the owner.
In paying compensation to the owners, will consideration be given to the amount which they will have to pay to tenants? If it will be, why not pay the tenant direct, and the landlord direct, and so avoid any confusion and argument? Will the landlord be allowed to deduct the amount which he has to pay to the tenant before he is assessed for improvement value? I hope that the Minister will answer these questions.
I do not believe that four years rent is adequate. I know that it is more than was provided in the past, but it is still not enough. After all, we will be dealing with men who, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey rightly said, have done a first-class job, but surely they have done more than this? They have devoted their whole lives to agriculture. In many cases their forefathers tilled the same land. They will suddenly find themselves without any land to farm, because, with the ever-increasing demand for land for the building of new towns and other developments, tenant farms are becoming scarcer and scarcer. In fact, it is probably true to say that no tenant farms are available now.
If a tenant farmer is kicked out through no fault of his own, he will have literally nowhere to go. What will he do if he is displaced from his farm? A man of 45 or 50 who has lived on the land for most of his life has a considerable amount of farming "know-how", but not much "know-how" about anything else. He will have to start again from scratch. It must be remembered, too, that he will have been his own master for many years. It will be extremely difficult for him to put the clock back and start working for somebody else.
I think that we ought to ask what compensation is adequate, because these people will be removed not only from


their living, but from their homes. What compensation is adequate for them? Who can say what is an adequate sum for a man and his family who do not want the compensation anyway, but want to be allowed to remain on the land and pursue the life they have chosen?
I do not believe that four years' rent is anything like enough, because these men will have to start from scratch in an entirely different kind of job. We ought to cock our sights at paying far more than four years' rent by way of compensation. We are not dealing merely with acres of land. We are dealing with human beings who are being taken away from their land through no fault of their own. I believe that there must be a complete rethinking on the whole question of compensation.
The owner farmer who is displaced must be justly compensated, so must the owner of the land which is let to a tenant farmer, and the tenant farmer should receive compensation, not from the landlord, but from the Government who have a direct liability to see that he and his family are properly housed and put in a position to find employment suitable to his recognised abilities.
No one wants to halt progress, but that progress must take into account the problems which it generates. I find the Clause as it stands unacceptable to the tenant farmer, and unacceptable to the landlord or the owner of a farm if he has to pay compensation to the tenant farmer out of what he gets himself.
I therefore hope that during the passage of the Bill careful consideration will be given to the appalling damage which will be done to the man who has worked on the land for most of his life and suddenly finds himself cast out. Compensation of four years' rent is not enough. We have to do better for him, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill some better terms will be worked out.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: In dealing with a miscellaneous provisions Bill one is al ways in danger of making a very bitty speech. I am aware before I start that this is exactly what I shall do. There are just a few points that I want to raise. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the Bill and look forward to the improvements that can be

made in Committee. I generally welcome the objects of the different parts.
I share the fear that has already been expressed about the vagueness of Part I concerning the welfare of livestock. I fear it because of the rights of entry associated with it and also the conditions that can be laid down under the powers provided. They are very wide powers, which will have considerable effects on businesses, and they could be put into effect by the Minister without the consent of Parliament. Nevertheless, I recognise that we are groping in the dark in this matter, and I cannot see that any other method than that laid down in the Bill could be employed.
I make a plea, however, that when any Regulations are made there will be full consultation with all parties who will have to work under those Regulations—the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, and any other body which is concerned. I also ask the Minister to be particularly careful about the way in which the Regulations are applied. It is often just those farmers who are most efficient and who are producing food cheapest who have gone in for factory methods of farming. It is they who will be regulated—not necessarily penalised—by the Regulations. It would be disastrous if by the application of the earlier Clauses we found that we were merely preserving what I would call the hayseed and smock type of farmer rather than the more efficient and competent farmer.
An interesting fact has been brought up by the definition which refers to buildings on agricultural land, which are referred to and dealt with in Part I. The definition includes a building on a smallholding or a small area, even though it might be a concrete building, if it consists of a series of broiler houses or an intensive unit. This is right, and that is the way in which a Bill like this should apply, but there should be a quid pro quo. Such buildings on smallholdings should also be regarded as agricultural holdings and agricultural land for rating assessment purposes.
I hope the Minister will make sure that legislation will soon be introduced to balance up these situations. We cannot define agricultural land in one way for the purposes of the district valuer and the Inland Revenue and in another way for


the purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture when dealing with the implementation of its Regulations.
I now turn briefly to Part II, dealing with the additional payments to tenant farmers. This is excellent. I am delighted to be able to say that, as a landlord, I put a Clause with almost these exact terms into a tenancy agreement 12 months ago. They are necessary. But, again, we shall run into some problems. One problem that has been highlighted by two of my hon. Friends concerns the landlord who pays compensation to a tenant who will receive that compensation, rightly, tax-free, development charge-free, and free of other charges. Will this be offsetable by the landlord or the landowner against the development charge or Capital Gains Tax which he will have to pay on the land when it is purchased or taken over, compulsorily or otherwise?
In connection with taking over land for forestry, I suspect that the terms laid down are designed to compensate a Scottish Member who sits on the Government benches and who used to complain periodically from below the Gangway about people buying estates and putting them all down to forests for deer, and so on, in Scotland. I cannot see any justification for this change in respect of forestry, except in a limited number of cases. I again hope that there will be a quid pro quo in respect of forestry grants to compensate for this additional charge and—it will be a very heavy additional charge—on those people who were farseeing enough to plant trees in order to increase the area of forest land.
I want to raise two points about the drainage rights and the land drainage provisions. First, I hope that when this new method of raising revenue is applied it will be used for the large and important schemes. I hope that the Ministry will look benevolently at the larger schemes, and that the drainage boards will receive help in cases where land is going back into the sea. In my constituency there are cases where, if a certain amount of money is spent today, we can preserve from sixty acres up to a few hundred acres of land in different groups and produce good crops on it in the near future.
The other drainage point has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr.

Hawkins). It concerns the problem of agricultural land which is being built on and which attracts a drainage charge and drainage rate. I have one such case in the middle of Witham, where people coming from London bought houses in a new development which had a total drainage assessment of £10. The developer pointed out that it was only £10 for the whole of the area. That was all that was being paid when it was agricultural land, but as soon as it became built over the drainage board was able to levy a much higher rate on each plot. That is contrary to what the Minister said when he introduced the Bill.
I am delighted to see that so few Amendments are necessary to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964. That is an Act in which I had a particular interest. I would be grateful if, within the confines of this debate, the Minister could explain how it is working and confirm that apart from these comparatively small amendments, it is working reasonably well.
These are small points which I have raised. As I said at the outset, I regret that they are bitty points in dealing with a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. Generally, however, I regard the provisions of the Bill as sound and, with the reservations which I have mentioned, I welcome it.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Loveys: My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) began and ended his speech by saying that it was bitty. That was very modest of him and it was quite unnecessary for him to say it. He covered a large number of points and made an interesting speech. My hon. Friend will not, however, expect me to follow him in what he has said, as I intend to be brief because several others of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
I would like to say a few words about Parts I and II of the Bill which relate to the welfare of livestock and the payment of compensation to tenant farmers when all or part of their holding is taken for development outside agriculture. Both these matters have received thought and discussion in the farming world for many years and legislation to deal with compensation for tenant farmers is certainly very much overdue.
With regard to Part I, the main conclusion of the Brambell Committee, of which we have heard a great deal today and which was set up by the previous Government, was that the great majority of farmers were concerned to ensure the health and welfare of their stock. Although we have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity of discussing the Brambell Report on the Floor of the House, by that conclusion the Brambell Committee did a very great service in removing the fear, which was expressed in certain ill-informed quarters, that widespread cruelty to animals was practised. There was a great furore about this some years ago and the Brambell Committee, by its final conclusion, did a great deal to remove that fear.
Even so, I certainly welcome this new legislation, which in Part I gives merely enabling powers. It is right that it should not go further at this stage. Not until the codes of practice which are mentioned in Clause 4 are detailed by, in some cases, affirmative and, in other cases, negative Resolution procedure are the Government likely to run into any controvery with the farming industry. One sees great difficulties ahead in that respect. There must be the greatest possible consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon stressed the need for the fullest consultation with everybody involved. I was a little disappointed that in his opening speech this afternoon the Minister did not mention consultation, but it will be necessary to have the greatest possible consultation before definite plans are produced.
One sees difficulties not because farmers wish in any way to condone cruelty, but, naturally, they will be most concerned to ensure that they are not forced into uneconomic methods of production which affect them adversely when compared with foreign producers. There is the particular point about entry into the Common Market and the need to see uniform regulations should we enter the Common Market. In a wider setting, I would like to see the Government take a lead in the world position as a whole concerning livestock. There is no doubt that many dreadful practices are followed in many parts of the world.
The main criticism of Part I of the Bill—and I know that the National Farmers' Union is concerned about this—is the wide powers of entry which are

given to police and to any persons authorised by the Minister to inspect farms, although, if I understood him correctly, I thought that the Minister said that this would be confined to veterinary officers. I hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Minister did not say that.

Mr. Loveys: I hope that that will be the case. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary appears to be nodding. I hope that we will hear definitely about this, because nobody wants hordes of snoopers descending on his farm.
Some people have expressed fears to me about this. I must, however, admit that reasonable inspection is necessary for enforcement, and reasonable inspection in this case would almost always be inspection simply by Ministry veterinary officers. I have been farming all my working life and if it is a choice between the filling up of innumerable forms and having an inspector visit my farm, as could be the choice in this case. I prefer the latter every time.
I therefore welcome Part I of the Bill, although I stress the need for the fullest consultation before definite proposals are introduced. Part II is very much overdue, and I know that the National Farmers' Union has been campaigning in this matter for four years. The Minister has based his proposals in the Bill on the method suggested some time ago by the N.F.U.: namely, a proportion of the annual rent. While welcoming the proposals, I feel that this basis will be altered.
Present-day rents do not afford a uniform pattern to make the system completely fair because many farmers pay a low rent, for perfectly good reasons. They may have invested considerable capital in their farms and on improvements on condition that the landlord pays the rent. They might have a full repairing lease, which could make a difference of £4 or £5 per acre a year in rent. Other examples could be given of charges being paid by the landlord, whilst in other cases they are paid by the tenant. This affects the rent. I feel, therefore, that another basis of compensation should be found. It should not be difficult to find another method of assessment. The best thing is to seek the assistance of my hon. Friend


the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who gave a good example of how the matter could be dealt with.
Part I of the Bill should need little alteration because it is general in nature and permissive. There remains to be dealt with simply the question of consultation, on which I hope that we will hear something definite from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I welcome Part II in principle, but there is no doubt that a more fair basis of compensation and assessment will have to be found.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I wish to make only a short contribution concerning three points. We on this bench welcome the Bill with slight reservations, one of which has been voiced by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) concerning the possibility of excessive or wide powers under Part I. I am sure that when the Minister replies to the debate he will comment on that. It does not worry me tremendously because I am certain that in practice this provision will be wisely used and not in any way exploited or misused. The point must, however, be made.
In dealing with Part II of the Bill I should, perhaps, declare an interest in that I am not only a landlord but a tenant. I am my own tenant in partnership of land which I own. Whether, if the partnership were to end, I would thereupon have to pay myself compensation, I do not quite know.
One line in this part of the Bill worries me slightly. It says that the rate of compensation will be four times the appropriate portion of the rent at the rate at which it was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy. I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate for the introductory speeches—this was force of circumstance—and I do not know whether this has been dealt with.
It appears, however, to be possible for a landlord who plans to take over certain farms which he has let on an agricultural estate to reduce the rent over a period of years so as to decrease the compensation payable when he eventually puts the tenant out. Some tenants in my constituency have been given notice to quit

and the land has subsequently been used for purposes which would have made them eligible for compensation under this Part. I am particularly interested in this.
It has long been the policy of the Scottish National Farmers' Union that security of tenure—I mean from father to son, where the son is deemed competent and able to farm the land—should be reintroduced. I hope that the Minister will comment on this, as I am disappointed that such a provision is not in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I do not know why, but this debate has certainly emptied the Chamber. The House is not being used very intensively at the moment, particularly on the other side, whence all the broilers have disappeared.
I give the Bill a cautious welcome, but will not go as far as some hon. Members tonight. It clearly shows the Minister's wide powers, about which I am not happy. He says that he is reasonable, which is probably true, but I am not too happy about giving such wide powers.
Animal welfare is one of the main provisions of the Bill. Farmers know only too well that the fundamental law of good farming is that an animal thrives only if it is well cared for, with adequate food and protection. Live weight game per lb. today is the god of farming. If an animal does not thrive, a farmer will be out of pocket and even if he did not care for his animals—and by heaven they do—he would be foolish not to give them all the protection and help they require. Some people outside talk nonsense about farmers and how they treat animals. They have no idea of what goes on and should be told that farmers are sensible and love their animals; they have a vital interest in this, as it affects their pockets. That cannot be said too strongly.
Nonsense is also talked about how farmers house their animals. But Gran and Grandad are often not housed as well as some poultry and pigs, who have modern houses with underfloor heating, controlled ventilation and adequate meals. Some elderly people would like to be looked after as well as even my pigs and poultry. This needs saying, in view of some of the nonsense which is talked outside.
The first Part of the Bill arouses emotion in many people. I often tell critics of my intensive production, "Which would you rather be—a hen outside in the farmyard, your feathers fluttered by the south-westerly gale, with no food, perching at night in a tree with the danger of attack by foxes; or inside in a warm house, secure and protected, plenty of food"? This is what we should tell people who get emotional about this subject.
Pain is also an emotional subject. Pain thresholds vary between and within different species at different times and in different circumstances. Visitors to my farm from urban areas who see a cow calving are horrified by what they think is great pain, but this is nonsense. A cow normally does not feel pain at calving, but she might anticipate pain if she saw the preparations for an injection. People ought to get their facts right it this respect before talking about what pain might be inflicted.
The Minister has something to answer for here. The Ministry has done nothing to eradicate the warble fly, yet an animal can have 20 or 24 great maggots on its back—

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not spoil his speech. We have had a consistent campaign about the warble fly, so he should not indulge in this extravaganza.

Mr. Mills: With great respect, that scheme is voluntary and not compulsory and animals with warble flies on their backs suffer considerably. This also should be eradicated.
The consumer should also think carefully in this respect. The implications of the Bill for him are increased prices. He cannot have it both ways. If certain standards, conditions and regulations are laid down, this is bound to make food dearer. The reasonably cheap food which we get today through intensive production would not be possible with regulations which meant that farmers could not produce so intensively.
Imported food has been mentioned often tonight. It will be rather strange if, in future, some of us eat "Brambell" boiled eggs while others eat Polish or Danish boiled eggs, subject to no control

of production conditions. It could be grossly unfair if the British farmer had to do these things while cheap imported food "got away with it".
Something else which has not been mentioned very much is the provisions in Clause 33 to help the undue fluctuations in the bacon industry. I am very unhappy about this industry and its future. I am not certain that Clause 33 will help very much. In my view—I may get some dark looks from my own Front Bench now—my own party has made mistakes in the past regarding the bacon industry. Farmers have made mistakes, too. They have not produced the right sort of pig; they have not kept their contracts, and they have failed to supply the required number and quality of pigs.
Past Governments have made mistakes, farmers have made mistakes, and the present Government have made mistakes. The bacon curers have made mistakes, too. With few exceptions, they have not put their own house in order. And how sensitive the bacon curers are to any criticism. Yet these matters have to be looked into and must be dealt with. As I say, I am most unhappy about the future prospects for the bacon industry.
I have here some extracts from the report of an investigation into the British pig industry. Some of the comments are most disquieting. For instance,
Generally, there is a weakness in the industry due rather to wrong policies and organisation than to any failure to implement policies".
Then, it is said:
Major reorganisation seems necessary at the processing level… "—
how true that is—
Rationalisation needs to take place as well".
So I could go on citing instances where we have gone wrong in the past, where the bacon curing industry and the farmers themselves have gone wrong.
The help which the Government have given—it is a loan, not a subsidy, to the bacon curers—has, admittedly, done a fair amount of good. Indeed, it has kept them going. But, in my opinion, it should be used for rationalisation and streamlining of the industry, not as a prop, as I fear it has been used.
I call upon the Minister to look closely at the report on the bacon industry which will in due course come from the "Little Neddy". I hope that he will be severe to me as a farmer, severe to the curing industry, and severe to himself, so that we may once and for all get the affairs of the industry sorted out.
The major mistake of the present Government in regard to the bacon curing industry is that they have not realised that it cannot be successful until we have further control of imports and levies. Danish bacon is subsidised. The industry is very well organised and the product is well presented over here. The Danes are strong challengers to anything we try to do in Britain.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman says that we should do something about imports. Would he advise me to break the international agreement which his Tory colleagues believed in and still believe in?

Mr. Mills: No, I am not suggesting that at the moment. What I say is that he should start to think seriously about the future, when that agreement, perhaps, comes to an end, and when we need desperately a system of import control and levies.

Mr. Peart: Acceptance of an international agreement under which we have a percentage arrangement is, in a sense, a form of control. Is the hon. Gentleman against it? I have always said that I want a strong British bacon industry, and what I have proposed in the Bill confirms that.

Mr. Mills: I want the Minister to think a long way ahead, to prepare to get the business of control right. I want the control of bacon imports taken even further, with a levy system, for, unless we do that, faced with the subsidies paid on Danish bacon, our industry will not be viable. I want him to think ahead on those lines not only in regard to bacon but in regard to all the other imports, lamb and so on, which are coming in. I want him to take the forthcoming report on the bacon industry from the "Little Neddy" very seriously and act accordingly.
I have spoken mainly about bacon curing. I do not know whether other

hon. Members share my concern for the industry's future, but I am most concerned. Mistakes have been made all along the line, by my own party, by farmers and by bacon curers, and things must be put right soon. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give me a little encouragement and give the industry encouragement in regard to what he intends to do.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I shall refer, first, to the powers given to the Minister to implement the Brambell Report, and, second, to the provisions for compensation to dispossessed tenant farmers. In my constituency there are two expanded towns, Basingstoke and Andover, and in both cases a good deal of dispossession of tenant farmers is taking place. This is, therefore, a matter of concern to tenant farmers and farmers generally in my constituency.
I turn, first, to the Minister's powers to make regulations for animal welfare. The whole House will join in the desire to prevent unnecessary suffering by animals. I say the whole House because a few minutes ago there was a Labour back bencher present, although he has now left the Chamber so that on the Government benches now we see only the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who is his P.P.S. We are delighted to see the hon. Gentleman here, but that is the extent of the attendance opposite. It is not as thick a House as one might have expected for a debate on this subject. As an aside, may I say that some of us would hope that the regulations which the Minister is to apply to the living conditions of animals should apply also to travellers on British Rail at times when the commuter trains are running.
I welcomed the Minister's flexible approach in introducing the Bill today, and I hope that he will bear in mind that, when he takes power to lay down regulations on building dimensions, layout and construction materials, he will exert a considerable influence on costs in the industry. If there are changes in costs as a result of regulations introduced by the Minister, I hope that they will be borne in mind at the following February Price Review, and I hope for an assurance on that from the Minister.
I also hope that the Minister will take steps to see that similar standards apply to imports. I am not sure how he can do this, but I shall be interested to hear his views on the best method. I suppose that there is a method, because we can prevent knacker's meat being imported for human consumption. There is an inspection system, and presumably it will be possible to see that we do not cripple our own farmers by laying down regulations for them which do not apply to imports.
The Minister should also bear in mind the negotiations which we hope are about to begin for our joining the Common Market. If there are different standards in the Community, and if there is total free trade in agricultural produce between us and the Six, the conditions which limit us will be an important factor in the prosperity of British agriculture.
Why is Northern Ireland, I understand, exempt from the provisions of the Bill? Has consideration been given to the agreement on agricultural produce made by the Government with Eire 18 months ago? British farmers might be faced with unfair competition from imports from Eire. All that I am really asking is that we should not put good British farmers at a disadvantage compared with their foreign competitors.
I welcome the provisions for additional compensation for dispossessed tenant farmers, but I have a number of questions and should like to suggest some important improvements. First, why does the Minister choose the rent paid and not the rental value as the basis for compensation? Basingstoke is an expanding town and people have known about the expansion for some time, with the result that when an old lease falls in it is just allowed to run on, and the rent is not increased to the current rent. In the case of a farmer who was paying £3 10s. a year per acre rent the local council took over the land and allowed him to carry on in possession for a short term and increased the rent to £5 an acre. But the compensation to be paid to him will be based on £3 10s. an acre. It is quite illogical that a public authority fixes a fair market rent at £5 An acre and the Minister says in the Bill that compensation is to be paid at £3 10s. an acre. This is a serious point which should be considered care-

fully, because it is in the expanding towns that cases such as I have quoted are most frequent and that compulsory acquisition by local authorities most frequently takes place.
There is a variety of variations in the current rent for a variety of reasons, including the "fag end" of a long lease or a lease with full repairing terms. A tenant may have a lower rent because he has added to the landlord's fixtures by electrifying the farm buildings and so on, or he may be a good tenant who has taken over a bad farm and is building up its fertility, which the landlord has taken into account in fixing the rent. In all such cases, it is the farmer who has a low rent because he is a good tenant who will get the least compensation, and this is illogical. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider whether the market value or what the farmer must pay on an alternative farm are not the right basis for compensation.
The Minister or his Department must have recognised the validity of my argument, because under Section 13(3) the acquiring authority can appeal to the Lands Tribunal that the valuation is too high on the basis of the rent currently being paid. It seems to me that the Minister has given himself a one-sided option which is grossly unfair to the farming community. He will say, "We accept the basis of the rent being paid as the right basis for compensation, but we" —the Minister and the acquiring authority—" take power to question it and to refer it to the Lands Tribunal if we think it is unfair. But we do not give the same right to the tenant-producer." Apart from being a weakness in the Bill, it would be unfortunate if we were to allow the Measure to become law in this form. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and what is good for the acquiring authority is also good for the tenant who is being displaced.
Do the increased payments contained in the Bill replace the discretionary payments which local authorities were previously able to make? I am not sure whether the Section 22 discretionary payments continue, with the payments under the Bill being an addition—and so partly replacing them—or whether the payments allowed for in the Bill totally replace them.

Mr. Peart: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchell: I take it that the payments under the Bill totally replace the discretionary payments. If that is the case, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate the immense variations that appear between one farmer and another in different circumstances.
He may not be able to find another tenancy or he may be elderly and this might mean the total loss of his livelihood. Perhaps, if he cannot find another tenancy, he cannot buy a farm. A constituent of mine who was dispossessed by reason of town expansion could not find another tenancy and bought two small farms some distance away. The local authority had not paid him the discretionary allowance he was due. The credit squeeze came along and my constituent's bank told him, "We want your overdraft paid straight away". The unfortunate fellow had to sell one of the two farms to repay his overdraft.
There are immense differences between the problems facing one dispossessed farmer and another. For example, a man of 65 or older is in a totally different position from a man in his late forties. In instances of special difficulty, special expenses and special problems, the local authority, where it is the acquiring authority, should have some discretion. One does not want to see, as I have seen, cases of local authorities which want to acquire and believe it right to pay more than the district valuer or the regulations allow, but cannot do so because they know that they will be surcharged if they do. There should be some flexibility in these arrangements and I appeal to the Minister to keep this in mind.
Will the payments be free of Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax and the land levy? Farmers will want to know whether they will have to face these four taxes when they receive their payments. When local authorities compulsorily acquire this sort of land and owe money to farmers, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to arrange for them to pay interest on the money that they owe? In one instance in my constituency a discretionary payment took from October 1963 to October 1964 to be agreed.
In the country as a whole, not only thousands but possibly millions of pounds

are owed by public authorities compulsorily acquiring the properties of private citizens and farmers and on which they are paying no interest. This sort of forced loan to the local authority is grossly unfair to the farmer, who then has to borrow from the bank at Bank Rate—and it has risen again today—at a high level in order to finance his replacement elsewhere.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman not going to apply these provisions to negotiations now in progress? I am sure that this is unintentional and I make no suggestion that it is otherwise. But it so happens that, at Basingstoke and Andover, we were the pioneers of town expansion as opposed to new town development and it seems that my constituents are to be harshly affected by the position that negotiations already in hand will not be allowed under these provisions.

Mr. Peart: I would like to clear up at once what appears to be a misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman has, quite rightly, put to me some important points. Many of them are Committee points. He has asked me whether the new payment replaces the discretionary payment. I hope that, at this stage, he will not press me further but I am not at present proposing to end discretionary payments which are there. After all, we are going into a transitional period. I hope that he will not press me too much.

Mr. Mitchell: I could not be more delighted. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given this assurance because it is of immense importance and value for the reasons I have set out. I would not have troubled the House by setting them out had I realised his attitude. I am most grateful to him.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not delayed the House in any way. He has raised some most important matters.

Mr. Mitchell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will cover, or whether he will amend it to cover, farms which are ruined by motorways being made across them? Here a compulsory purchase may be ruining a farmer by cutting through the middle of it. A byroad pattern may follow the motorway turning the farm into several segments and small shapes. In my constituency,


where the M.3 is to run, there is the following case—and I quote from a surveyor's report—
As the result of the proposed motorway and minor road, it appears your farm will be converted from a farm within a ring fence to a farm divided into 4 parts by motorway and minor road … with the additional difficulty of odd shaped fields and increased travelling from the two main parts of the farm by the closure of the existing minor road.
Having regard to all the circumstances we would not be prepared to recommend the farm in its present state as a security for an advance by way of mortgage.
This is a very important matter. "Ruined" may be too strong a word, but where a farmer finds that his farm is almost impossible to work as a single unit and has to go elsewhere and cannot raise the money on his old farm because it has been blighted by the approaching motorway, and since the right hon. Gentleman to my delight is thinking in terms of tenant compensation, I hope that he will give some consideration to this aspect as well.
I apologise for detaining the House longer than I intended, but in my constituency the question of compensation is very important and affects a large number of farmers, so I felt it right that these points should be drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is five years, less 12 days, since we last had an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and it is interesting to recall conditions as they then were. The right hon. Gentleman opened for the Opposition from this Box, and he gave a general welcome to the Bill, as I do now, but he said two things which I find particularly interesting in view of present events. He said:
… if we go into the Common Market under a common agricultural policy, under Dr. Mansholt's régime … hill farming can be subsidised …
Later, he quoted from an interview given by Dr. Mansholt to the Daily Telegraph, in which he said:
These are, of course, problems for hill farmers and others in similar categories, but these can be dealt with by subsidies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1252–3.]
These quotations confirm my recollection of negotiations then. I just wish that

things were as simple now and I say that very seriously.

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member has remembered my speech and that he has quoted it accurately. I have always said that if we ever had to enter into a wider community, we must certainly safeguard the interests of hill farmers and I repeat that today.

Mr. Stodart: The trouble is that it is not apparently so easy now. I wish it were. At that time, according to the right hon. Gentleman, there was certainty about it.
We have had a brisk and rather thoughtful debate. It is a pity that there have been, for such long spells, completely empty benches on the Government side. [An HON. MEMBER: "And on the hon. Gentleman's."] The difference between the Government benches and ours, mathematically, would be one of infinity, which would take a good deal of going into. One can certainly say that there is no fear of overcrowding or intensive husbandry on the Government benches.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his tributes to the livestock farmers. It is one in which I think hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have joined and it is thoroughly well-merited. It is one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) joined, and there are not very many Englishmen who have managed to win prizes at the Perth bull sales, and, therefore, the remarks of my hon. Friend are well worth considering.
As to Part I of the Bill, I recall a debate which we had in the Scottish Grand Committee three years ago when, in the course of a reply for the Government of the day, I made three points. It was a debate about intensive husbandry and I remember saying that the spread of cities would eliminate farms all over the country most of them, alas, very good farms. It is an unfortunate factor of urban development that the best land so often lies close to the cities.
The result of this inevitably means that production of farming units is becoming concentrated and it is a fact that over and over again farmers have been told that they must become more efficient businessmen. This is all part of the


same process. I went on to say that this was a matter upon which everyone, as we know, has views.
I do not particularly want to go in for intensive livestock husbandry merely because I prefer to see my animals running around in the fields. It gives me pleasure, and as long as I can afford to see calves running in a grass field rather than putting them on slats I shall continue to do so. That is very far from saying that intensive production as practised on the vast majority of farms causes any pain or suffering.
I have never believed that if animals in intensive conditions were in pain or were suffering they would look as well as they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made clear, the profit margins in livestock husbandry are so fine that no farmer can afford to keep an animal which is not doing well or in conditions in which it will not do well.
However, I am worried—and the worry has been expressed on both sides of the House—about the wider field which is being opened up to right hon. Members opposite and their successors by the powers given in the Bill. There is one on which I should like to comment briefly. The system of tethering beef cattle in the North-East of Scotland, which, although I say it as a Scotsman, has produced the finest beef ever, is undoubtedly put in jeopardy by Clause 2(1,c). We have to take the Minister's word about there being no regulations on housing meantime, and probably tethering will come under the heading of "housing" rather than "nutrition". Very great caution is needed when interfering with systems which have worked remarkably well and which continue to do so.
I do not like the power of entry given to
A person … authorised … by a local authority"—
and that virtually means any person—in Clause 6. The Minister said that, generally speaking, his officials will be used; occasionally, it will be necessary to use the police. I do not think that great exception can be taken to that, because I accept that with regulations of this kind inspection must be of such a nature that it cannot be foreseen so far ahead as to make inspection completely fruitless. But it is going wide to allow any

person … authorised … by a local authority
to do it. Although the phrase is "a person", I suspect that it covers virtually anyone whom the local authority chooses to designate.
I come to the point made by one or two of my hon. Friends that there are no restrictions on those who send us a quarter of all the beef and veal we eat, over half of all the mutton and lamb we eat and two-thirds of all the bacon we consume. I noticed an expression of pain coming over the face of the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summer-skill) said that English people love animals.
In view of a certain event which happened last week, I thought that that might cause a good deal of anguish and discontent with a lady who will be coming to the House, I understand, next week. She said, "English people love animals. You see this when you go abroad". That is true: we do love animals. Remembering what one might call the unnecessary pain and suffering caused to the Celtic football team in the Argentine only a few days ago, in a country whence comes very much of our meat, one must be entitled to harbour quite a few doubts about the sort of treatment which animals will get from those in direct competition with us. It is extremely hypocritical for people to call shame on the heads of farmers in this country while searching the shops for meat from countries overseas where no controls exist.
On Part II, like hon. Members on both sides, I welcome the general principle of increased compensation, with reservations about the extreme complexity of Clause 10 and, perhaps worse still, Clause 11, which deals with the Scottish situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is a considerable authority on the law of tenancy. I certainly take the point about the difference between two tenants on the same estate. I can think of two who live not far from me. One has been paying a rent of £2 an acre for 15 years and the other went into the next-door farm only two years ago at a rent of £7 10s.
I see the argument, although it is certainly a point worth arguing, that the


man who pays only £2 has been getting a certain benefit through having his farm at less than market rent. On the other hand, one sees how it could happen that a man went into a poor farm seven years ago for which the rent should have been no more than £2; he improves it up to the level of a £7 an acre farm, at that precise moment it is taken over, and he is left with compensation of £2 because that was the rent he paid immediately prior to the takeover.
There is a strong case to be made against the present definition of rent in the case of tenants who pay a low rent and have undertaken to do all the improvements to the farm. This is a perfectly legal and normal feature of much of our landlord and tenant system. I know of any number of farms in the East of Scotland which are let at rents below market value but in which there is an agreement that the fences and buildings, for example, will be maintained by the tenant in return for getting the farm at less than market rent.
It is interesting to discover that the description of the rent, as given at lines 33 and 34 on page 6 of the Bill, is identical with that which featured in the 1948 and 1949 Acts. It is fairly characteristic of the progressive Government on the benches opposite that they continue to cling obstinately to the past and merely take words out of statutes nearly a quarter of a century old and do not keep up to date with present conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) asked for a clear statement about what I would describe as the process of compensation and how the local authority and the landlord operate when a takeover occurs. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in replying to the debate, will tell us this and will make the position as clear a, possible concerning the liability of the landlord to Capital Gains Tax and development charge on the compensation which he has to pay. I hope that we can get this from the right hon. Gentleman, who has a delightful lot of time at his disposal and must be feeling happy that he has so much time in which to answer all the questions put to him during the debate.
I certainly welcome Part III of the Bill on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent English constituen-

cies. I admired, as I always do, the lucidity of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards). It is always a pleasure to witness the clinical precision with which he "tears strips off" right hon. Gentlemen on his own Front Bench and to see the glint in his eye at the prospects of consultations over Clause 18, a glint which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elysian Morgan) not only showed, but also confirmed in his speech. I would only say that I find great relief in the fact that Scotland is such a civilised country that it has no drainage rates at all. I think it is an admirable feature.
I want to say a word about Clause 35, the production grant Clause. I was most interested in what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech about beans, but I am bound to say that I think they are virtually of no use in Scotland. Climatically, they are just not a starter, and it is no use trying to pretend that they are, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East was touching on this point I noticed that the Secretary of State smiled in what I hope was a benevolent manner.
Quite frankly, I think that in all fairness we must have a break crop suitable for Scottish conditions. I say that in common fairness to good husbandry, and I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested. I can think of no other instance in the whole list of production grants of Scotland's not getting a share, sometimes a very good share; it varies, but it always exists. I think I would be right in saying—and the right hon. Gentleman may, and I hope will, be able to confirm this—that all the prospects are that this crop will not be of any use at all in Scottish conditions. The right hon. Gentleman said that other crops could be brought in by making other schemes for them.
Some are quite firmly left out, but it seems to me that here is an opportunity —I say this quite seriously—for doing something which, I know, has caused both sides of the House great difficulty, and that is, helping the sugar beet industry in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary and I have scored our party points about what each side did to the sugar beet industry—the transport convention, lowering the


fertiliser subsidy, and so on—but I am quite well aware that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to help in this if he can. It is an extremely difficult problem.
I know quite well that the right hon. Gentleman realises that if the Cupar factory were to close that would have much wider repercussions than merely agricultural ones. The yield per acre of sugar beet in Scotland makes it not a crop which is grown for cash profit, but one which is used as a green crop in the rotation, and it is thus doing precisely what this Clause is providing for. The Scottish Office in one of its publications, gives the average yield of sugar beet in Scotland as just over 11 tons an acre; therefore, a £5 an acre grant would, in simple terms, mean 10s. a ton, and if we take production as being 100,000 tons a year, which is about what the Cupar factory takes, the cost would be about £50,000 or £60,000.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he anticipates spending in England and Wales on the production grant for beans, because I should have thought that this would be a useful step in Scotland and the North, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider it seriously.
Turning briefly to Clause 37, I dare say that other hon. Members have received representations from the rose growers. I recall that in the debate on the regulations the subject of roses was raised by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis). As I understand, the Government have ratified the International Convention, and the effect of Clause 37 in Schedule 2 changes the 1964 Act so that it conforms with certain obligations which have been entered into under that Convention.
I do not want to go into details now because clearly it is a Committee point, but Mr. McGredy, who is a rose grower of considerable international repute, claims that if what is proposed in the Bill goes through and he is no longer allowed to use both the originally registered names and the popular fancy names which are preferred in catalogues, he will either have to give up all his British rights or lose his European exports and royalties.
I am not one of the Secretary of State's most ardent disciples, but I read a little

time ago in a Sunday newspaper which has such an enormous circulation that one knows that every word that it utters is the absolute truth, that he is a very keen rose grower. Readers were told that, every morning when his roses are in bloom, one of his first acts is to go into his garden, pick a rose, and present it to his wife. So touched was I by this gesture that it is one that I myself have adopted ever since. However, as a result, I cannot think that the appeals of the rose growers will find the right hon. Gentleman unsympathetic.
This is indeed a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. When one reads a single sentence which says, without any punctuation, that it is
& to provide for payments in respect of bacon and grants in respect of break crops and the supply of water to certain buildings ",
one could hardly get anything more miscellaneous than that.
There are one or two omissions which I wish had been in and which it may be possible to put in. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East mentioned one when he urged the inclusion of forestry as a tenant's improvement. It would do a tremendous amount of good for the integration of forestry and farming.
I hope that it might be possible to tackle the rating anomalies. It is very difficult to make real progress in a selective expansion programme when anomalies are so rife that, on the same farm, a farrowing house is derated but a fattening house is included on the role, or where even the smallest help to a neighbour is discouraged by the actions of assessors. We must tackle the problems and get them ironed out properly.
These are useful provisions, but it is not unfair to say that many of them are lightweight compared with what is really needed by an industry which is so genuinely and desperately anxious to play a major part in setting the economy of this country to rights.

9.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) invited me to speak until about 10 o'clock. I would disappoint a lot of people if I did that. Genial as I am, I do not think that I should trespass too long on the time of the House. After all, there is


to be a committee stage on this Bill and we want to leave some time for that.
My right hon. Friend has every right to be pleased at the general welcome that has been given to the Bill in so far as speakers addressed themselves to it. Whenever there is a good Bill that everyone agrees with, everybody wants to talk about another Bill altogether—something that should have been there. I think that this is an indication of the measure of agreement that there has been in this instance. We have struck the right balance in the Clauses relating to the welfare of animals. It is a tribute, too, to the Brambell Committee.
The tendency in this House is to accept the need for something to be done, but when something is suggested hon. Members say, "Ah, but not that". However, on this occasion there seems to be fairly general agreement that the way my right hon. Friend proposes to go about it is right. Knowing that the stock breeders and farmers of this country have regard to the wellbeing of their animals, we shall proceed on the basis of a code of practice for a start, and such regulations as are necessary will come later. This is by far the better way. If we had started to list in the Bill all the various things which we were to regulate we would inevitably have been forced to come back to the House in perhaps two or three years' time for new powers in respect of new practices that had been overlooked. This is the best way to do it. Whether or not we have covered them all is something we fully appreciate can be dealt with by (a) the code of practice and (b) the regulations.
Reference has been made to imports. My right hon. Friend spoke about this in August, 1966. Although he did not indicate that anything would require to be done he said that he would be having discussions about the import of white veal. That does not mean that is the end of the matter. We will continue to watch and ensure that there is fair play in regard to the regulations that we lay upon our own producers as against the nature of the competition that comes from abroad.
We were asked how all this was to be done and how was it to be policed. A few fears were expressed about the con-

stable, but I am glad to say that many people who disapproved of his appearance in the Statute seemed to think it was just as well he should be there. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) who talked about the second generation suffragette, I think the second generation policeman in a village will be able to cope with the position. It is only very rarely that the constable will be called upon to accompany anyone. Generally speaking, it will be done by the vet and by the technical officers of the Departments, and that is as it should be. That is how it should be. I think that it was the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) who said that we wanted sweet reasonableness and a certain measure of common sense in the administration of these provisions. I am sure that this is what we will get.
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman saying that traditional practices in the North-East might be endangered by the kind of regulations which will be imposed with regard to tethering. The Minister has said that the only thing he will do is to ensure that they have space for grooming, and that he has no intention of introducing regulations to end what has been a traditional practice, and one which has not led to any deterioration in the kind of beef which has been produced in Aberdeenshire or in any other part of the North-East of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) talked about consultation. Consultation is inevitable when dealing with issues like this. There is a very good relationship between the Departments and the farmers, and if we want them to accept the reasonable standards which we will embody in the code, this must be done by consultation. We do not want to place unnecessary and trammelling regulations on the farming community. I have no fears about the outcome, and I welcome what most hon. Members have said about this.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talked about local authority officers being given wide powers of entry. We are not giving them such powers. If he reads the Clause, he will see that these powers of entry are being given purely for the purpose of matters connected with feeding stuffs. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that he was mistaken.
We have every reason to be satisfied with the progress which has been made by the House in response to a need which was mentioned by the late John Dugdale in 1961. I think that the moderate tone of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), was an indication of her satisfaction that the Government have proceeded quickly to meet the aims of those who were concerned about this matter, and that we have struck the right balance.
I come now to Part II of the Bill, which deals with additional payments to tenant farmers. This provision has been widely welcomed by hon. Members, and it made me wonder why it was not introduced before. I think that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West who wished that his Government had brought it in. We are very pleased that we have introduced this provision, because we are dealing with an issue which has affected farmers in all parts of the country. So far we have been able to get all the land that we require for forestry in Scotland by means of voluntary agreements, but, as we are making this new provision, for additional payments in respect of land required for development, we should extend the provision to include all those who might be affected in some way.
One hon. Gentleman suggested that this Clause had been drafted in a complicated way. I believe that it is simple, and that it has been drafted in such a way that the onus for taking action will rest on the person who should take it, namely, the landowner or developer.
If we started to list all industrial development we would have a long catalogue and would inevitably miss out something again. The best thing to do was to give the right to the person being dispossessed and then make it obligatory for the landowner or the acquiring authority to state the agricultural purpose. So we have it the back way round, but it is clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth talked about pettifogging lawyers. If there were not so many pettifogging lawyers who twisted every single word that was put into a Statute the Statutes would be very much clearer and simpler. It is in order to safeguard the rights of the tenants, and, perhaps, the

landowners, that we have had to resort to this language. It should not prove to be all that difficult. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) suggested that people would be caught out on the basis of the technical wording, but I do not think that that is the case. Those who will have to take action in respect of not having to pay four times the rent will be the landowners. They will be more able to support the burden of getting expert advice than will the tenant than if the boot were on the other foot.
The question arises whether we were right in taking the yardstick of actual rent. This point was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), in a very good and thoughtful speech. It does not matter very much which yardstick we take; there will be anomalies. The hon. Member instanced one. It is already there in respect of compensation for disturbance in the case of agricultural holdings. If we departed from it in this case we would be bound to depart from it in the other Acts in which reference is made to it.

Mr. Hawkins: I said that it will lead to many anomalies between one farmer and another, and that the method of arriving at the proper rent is already laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) said, the Ministry or the acquiring authority can question whether the rent is too high, whereas the tenant cannot question whether the rent is too low. That is the point.

Mr. Ross: The search for fairness and the search for simplicity sometimes conflict. It may be that if it were thrown open to some other kind of formula it would lead to legal proceedings. Do not forget that the pettifogging lawyer is round the corner. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth has returned to the Chamber. I have a feeling that I shall be coming hack to him on some other point. When the Bill goes to Committee we may argue whether this is the best way or the simplest way of proceeding. I do not intend to announce any departure at this moment from what is now laid down in the Bill.
In framing Bills the question of complexity is always a difficult one. The


landlord will have to state reasons in respect of all notices to quit and not just in reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, as is the case now, and if landlords given no reason for a notice to quit many more tenants will serve counter-notices than is the case at present, simply to discover whether the dispossession is such as would entitle them to a resettlement sum. The hon. Member who suggested that the phrase "resettlement sum" is designed to prevent the recipient being liable to tax is right. It is deliberate, because, if we had called it compensation, it would have been liable to Capital Gains Tax. Therefore, no one will object to this. One hon. Member said that they are not necessarily being resettled but may be getting the additional payment in respect of only part of the holding, but, even in that case, one must reshape the enterprise and to that extent it is still resettlement.
Someone suggested that there was nothing to indicate how the private landowner would be taxed, and if he settles with the tenant farmer, of course, he will be selling to the developer a farm with vacant possession, which no one will say is not a more valuable asset than a farm with a tenant. On compulsory purchase, however, it is the acquiring authority which will make the additional payment to the tenant.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position over one of the four taxes which I mentioned—Capital Gains Tax. Could he clarify that over Income Tax, Corporation Tax and the land levy, because farmers wonder which of these they will be caught by.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman did not also mention Selective Employment Tax. We should leave these detailed points for Committee—

Sir Frank Pearson: The right hon. Gentleman said that, if a public authority acquires the land, it will then pay the tenant compensation, but the deal will be between the owner and the public authority. The tenant will not come into it directly at all. Is this still true?

Mr. Ross: When the acquisition takes place is a matter of time, depending on whether, first of all, the acquiring authority takes the farm over with a

tenant in possession. It then becomes the landowner and will make the transaction and be liable in respect of it. If it is done in advance of compulsory purchase, however, and the transaction is between the landowner and the tenant, the responsibility is then the landowner's, who, generally speaking, if the acquiring authority is acquiring a piece of land with a tenant, would then have to make his settlement with the tenant when notice to quit is given.
In many new towns—I can think of one bordering my area—a considerable number of acres with tenant farmers will have to be taken over, but it does not necessarily follow that, when the land is acquired, notice to quit is given right away. There might be a considerable time before the development, which is why we must appreciate that it may not be the person who is now the landowner to whom this applies, since after the compulsory purchase, the acquiring authority will stand in relation to the tenant as the land-owner does at present—

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, and perhaps he does not know the answer. It is neither here nor there whether the land is sold by compulsory purchase or voluntarily to the acquiring authority. My question was whether the sum which passes from the acquiring authority to the landowner is subject to either the development charge or Capital Gains Tax. That is all.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that it will be, but that is not a matter for me, nor is it a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. It is a matter for other Acts of Parliament and their incidence on any transaction.

Mr. David Mitchell: Oh, no.

Mr. Ross: I do not see anything wrong in that.

Mr. Dance: It must be wrong.

Mr. Ross: It is not a case of "must be wrong". It is a transaction in relation to land. In that respect, it will be liable as other transactions are.

Mr. Godber: We want to get this clear. Surely, where there is a liability to pay this sum, the sum to be paid should be offset before liability either to 40 per cent. development charge or Capital Gains Tax


arises. That is the point on which we need clarification.

Mr. Ross: That is an entirely different point. The hon. Member for Windsor asked me about liability for the whole sum. I am sure that it would be treated in the same way as any other straightforward deal. It may well be that in consideration of the price to be paid for a piece of land, the burdens upon the land will be taken into account.
I would not like to pontificate on a particular aspect of that kind—

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am sorry to have to press the Secretary of State—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, I cannot go further on that as an Agriculture Minister. We are dealing with hypothetical cases. It will depend entirely on the nature of the deal. [Interruption.] I cannot give way again. I suggested that I would not speak for an hour. I know that we have time, but I have many things to answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax wanted to know whether licences for research would be issued by Agriculture or Home Office Ministers. It will, of course, be the Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Dance: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: I want to press on. I was asked whether the inclusion of forestry had complicated the drafting of the Bill. It was stated that forestry is not development for planning purposes, but it accounts for a transfer each year of considerable areas of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. This is not as significant in England and Wales, but it is very significant in Scotland and it would be quite wrong to leave it out. It is fair that it should be included. Its inclusion does not, however, lead to the complexities of the Bill.
As to drainage provisions, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said that he was grateful that this had nothing to do with Scotland because we had no drainage rates. The hon. Member's memory must be fairly short about the difficulties we encounter in Scotland with flooding, when, according to statute, flood prevention drainage and the rest

are the responsibility of the owner of the land. The hon. Member knows the difficulties which arise in Scotland simply because responsibility for this does not rest upon an authority which has an obligation to do something about it. He must know that flooding in the Northern parts of Scotland last year cost the central authority a considerable amount of money.
One of the troubles about why we experience difficulty is the very point which was raised by two hon. Members from Wales about the nature of the land, the lack of population, the poverty of the soil and the difficulties of getting from those who will benefit the money to put into operation the various works of flood prevention and the rest and doing the necessary drainage, even of the secondary courses about which the hon. Member for Clitheroe spoke.
There have been difficulties here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth, the "pettifogging lawyer", said that the central Government should pay more. This is always a good point to make, but it should not be forgotten that the central Government pay a considerable amount. My hon. Friend knows that they do. However, we are dealing with the question in the Bill, changing the formula to a certain extent so as to get rid of a considerable and unfair burden. Everyone has welcomed the change in the formula, and, despite its complexity, it is nothing like the formula for calculating the rate support grant or the old equalisation grant, which used to take a fortnight to work out, let alone understand. It is much simpler than that, and there is a considerable element of justice within it which has been widely welcomed. If there are complications here, my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, need not worry. They will keep him and his colleagues in employment for a long time.
My hon. Friend talked about the seven deadly sins with reference to notice to quit and the ability to resume a tenancy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was concerned about what happened upon the accident of death, urging that we ought to do something far more radical for security of tenure, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in speaking of Scotland.


The Scottish law is different on this subject. Historically, it has been different Nevertheless, I assure the House that I am looking urgently into this question to see whether we can speedily do something about it in respect of particular farms and introduce a greater measure of security.
Now, the question of break crops. It was accepted by most people in Scotland—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes to a new point, will he give the two assurances for which I asked, assurances which, I understand, have already been indicated in negotiations, one about the register and the other about the valuation officer helping a board in making a reassessment?

Mr. Ross: Yes. I am sorry that I was not here to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I understand that the assurance is readily given and the Inland Revenue has agreed that local valuation officers may, if requested, give informal advice to internal drainage boards on apportionment of rateable values other than for public utilities. On the other question, the point was made that, if the new arrangements are to operate satisfactorily, it will be necessary for owner-occupiers to have access to the register or rate book, and this is a matter which we have in mind. We are considering adding an appropriate provision to the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins: Before leaving the question of drainage, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question I raised about housing estates being built upon land subject to drainage rates and say how the increase will come about in the circumstances to which I drew attention?

Mr. Ross: I am sorry not to have an answer to that. It is a point which can be taken up in Committee. It is a purely English matter, and it will not be overlooked when we come to discuss it.
I was about to discuss the question of break crops. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggested that field beans would be of little use in Scotland, and they asked about sugar beet in this connection. Let us not deceive ourselves in talking about sugar beet in terms of a

break crop. We want to do something about sugar beet, and I am as anxious as the hon. Member for Fife, East is to see a greater acreage in the part of Scotland which he represents which will give a better safeguard for the Cupar factory. He knows that we have not been inactive and have not only done something to help but last year gave a guarantee of continuing for a specific period. I should like to see a greater acreage of sugar beet in Scotland, but we should not deceive ourselves that that is the right way to do it. Crops other than those mentioned could be put in by means of an Order. Discussions are taking place with the farming organisations about that, but I do not hold out great optimism that we accept this and shall make changes straight away.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that at the moment there is no chance of a break crop in Scotland under the original Order?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will see from the Bill that it is specifically excluded. He will be able to discuss this. I take it that is talking about sugar beet—

Sir J. Gilmour: No.

Mr. Ross: Of course. we can grow beans in Scotland. The question is whether there will be as much use or finance from this in Scotland as in England and Wales, and there is the suggestion that in Scotland it will be another crop. The hon. Member mentioned turnip and rape as a possibility. I am saying that these things are under discussion and could be incorporated by the enabling powers in the Bill.

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman must have had discussions with his officials on this matter. Is not their advice that beans are not a crop that can readily be grown in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: They can, but whether they can be grown as well as elsewhere depends on climate and everything else.
On the whole we can be satisfied that we have a useful Bill. There was a suggestion that it is very narrow but that is not so. We even have Mr. McGredy's roses—not to mention Mr. Ross's, though I do not think that I should be covered


by Clause 37. We shall be glad to consider this point in Committee, but I understand that Mr. McGredy is mistaken on the effect of Clause 37 and that it will not deprive him of protection and royalties abroad. The Clause has been agreed with all the associations, including the Plant Breeders' Rights Association, of which Mr. McGredy is a member.
I am grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) about co-operatives. With the fishing co-operatives it is not where they fish or what they fish that will be a determining factor; it is the nature of the co-operative association that determines whether it will have the particular exemption,
Every single one of the Clauses in the Bill is relevant to a problem of someone in agriculture. We are making an advance of additional payments for dispossessed tenants, a matter that has been a burning issue with people for years. It was wrong to use the words "small and inept" of the Bill. It is far from small and far from inept. It is very useful, and I think that we shall find that that is so as the days go on and even more useful things are suggested in Committee.

Mr. Peter Mills: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has sat down. Did the hon. Gentleman, however, wish to intervene before he sat down?

Mr. Peter Mills: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any of the questions that were asked about Clause 33, its effect on the bacon industry and the problems attached to that industry. Does he consider that the Clause will help the industry?

Mr. Ross: Clause 33 puts into statutory form something that we have already been covering and it is my belief that all concerned welcome it. The Government have done a lot for the bacon industry in this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme that will be laid down will be a fair one. One might call the arrangement "give and take" at this time. This arrangement has been welcomed by all concerned and I regret

that the hon. Gentleman feels that it is in some way deficient. I assure him that the Government have been responsive to the needs of the bacon industry and I hope, therefore, that we shall have his support not only for the Bill as a whole but also for Clause 33.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the welfare of livestock and for other purposes (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State or the said Minister and the Secretary of State jointly—

(a) in giving free advice on matters relating to the welfare of livestock;
(b) in making, in pursuance of any scheme under the Act, payments to bacon curers (as defined by or under the scheme) in respect of bacon as so defined which is produced by them, or payments in respect of break crops of such descriptions as may be specified in the scheme;
(c) in making grants in respect of the supply of water to buildings situated on or used in connection with agricultural land as defined by section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act 1940 or to buildings used for the purposes of agriculture as defined by section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948;
(d) by way of administrative expenses;
(2) any expenditure incurred by the said Minister in making to a river authority grants or advances in respect of the authority's expenditure in connection with their functions under section 34(1)(b) or (c) of the Land Drainage Act 1930 or advances in respect of expenditure of the authority appearing to the said Minister to qualify for grant under section 38(2) of the Land Drainage Act 1961;
(3) any expenditure incurred by the said Minister in making grants or advances to a river authority or an internal drainage board in respect of their expenditure on rebuilding or repairing bridges;


 (4) any expenditure incurred by any Minister or government department (other than the Postmaster General)—

(a) in making payments to assist in the resettlement of the tenant of an agricultural holding; or
(b) in paying additional compensation attributable to alterations made by the Act in the effect of provisions in contracts of tenancy or leases authorising resumption of possession for non-agricultural purposes,
in cases where the Minister or department acquire the tenant's interest in, or take possession of, the holding or part of it in exercise of compulsory powers;
(5) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under section 92(2) of the General Rate Act 1967;
(6) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of rate support grants which may arise from the inclusion, in the expenditure relevant to the fixing of the aggregate amount of those grants, of expenditure under the Act. —[Mr. John Mackie.]

WAYS AND MEANS

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the welfare of livestock and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the levying, in pursuance of any scheme made under the said Act, of sums to be paid by bacon curers, as defined by or under the scheme, in respect of bacon as so defined which is produced by them;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required by the said Act to be so paid. —[Mr. Harper.]

FOOD (ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS)

9.37 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 1119), dated 24th July 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, in the last Session of Parliament be annulled.
This subject of artificial sweeteners—sweeteners which go under the name of cyclamates—has been before the House for many years. It is probably desirable to say at the outset that these artificial sweeteners are derived from benzine, but

are thirty times as sweet as sugar. There appears to have been considerable pressure on the Ministry for a long period to allow these sweeteners to be used in foodstuffs generally. At present, they are permitted only in defined proportions in soft drinks.
If the Regulations come into force as proposed, on 1st December, then cyclamates will be permitted in all foodstuffs with the exception of ice cream. One may wonder why ice cream has been excluded. A technical reason is given for this, but one may suspect that it could be because large quantities of ice cream tend to be consumed at certain periods by children and that there may be some concern about the amount of cyclamates consumed in that way.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would the hon. Lady help the House by pointing out exactly where in the Regulations ice cream is shown to be excluded? I have seen the Sugar Bureau's submission—to the effect that it is excluded—but I cannot identify the exclusion in the Regulations.

Mrs. Butler: I am assured that it is there. I do not want to take up time in digging it out at this stage, because a number of other hon. Members want to speak and no doubt my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will cover the point in his reply if necessary.
In the United States, cyclomates have been permitted for dietary foods, but in January this year the Food and Drugs Administration announced that it was making a special investigation of scientific reports that cyclomates might be a possible cause of birth defects and embryo deaths.
This evidence was based on both Japanese and American studies. It is interesting to note that, in Russia and Eastern Europe, cyclomates are banned altogether and the reason for this is particularly important. Although cyclomatcs have been under consideration for many years, they were always considered to be physiologically inert and it is only recently, in the last year, that they have been found to convert in certain people to produce cyclohexylamine, which is recognised to be a highly toxic substance and which, even more significantly, is


related to di-cyclohexylamine, which has carcinogenic properties.
This new evidence about the nature of cyclamates has pulled many experts up short and has made them feel that we should examine the whole subject more closely. In the United States, this is being done and even in this country the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, which advises the Minister—although in its second Report on the subject it advised him to go ahead with permitting cyclamates in all foodstuffs—has stated:
If the Pharmacology Sub-Committee had been in possession of this information"—
this is the information to which I have referred—
at the time of their original consideration of cyclamates they would have requested the carrying out of further work necessary to resolve these problems raised by the finding of cyclohexylamine as a metabolite of cyclamates in man.
That is significant. The very Committee that the Minister is relying on for advice has raised this point. Moreover, in suggesting that it is safe to go ahead with cyclamates in food in this country, the Committee has recommended, and the Minister has accepted the recommendation, that cyclohexalymine be examined from the toxicological point of view within the next three years as a matter of urgency and that within the next five years, further metabolic studies of cyclamates should be carried out.
It seems extraordinary, therefore, that, at this point, when experts in many countries and of many types are worried about the possible effects of cyclamates, when our own Advisory Committee recognises that there is cause for concern, we are giving the all clear to these substances. One would think that, in such circumstances, the Minister would wait for the results of studies which are being carried out to make sure that there is complete safety in using these substances in foodstuffs, especially when there are other worrying features of cyclamates.
Evidence has been produced in animal studies of possible stunting of growth and also of some effects on organs of the body—the liver, the kidneys and the intestines, in particular. These studies may or may not be significant for human beings, but there is a doubt and one which needs much more careful examination.
Although the subject has been under consideration in this country for 11 years —and I am sure my hon. Friend will stress this point—we just do not know enough about the effects on human health when cyclamates are widely used. It has been suggested by experts that if cyclamates are permitted in food generally a reasonable amount for an individual to consume every day is about three grammes.
The evidence that we have from the United States is that, with children particularly, many persons have been found to consume about 12 grammes a day. It is impossible to predict how much any one person, particularly children, will absorb of these substances once they are permitted in food. Many children eat vast quantities of sweets, and others, sweet foods. Some of them may be having very large intakes and no one can possibly say in advance that they will only be having limited quantities.
The Ministry is being unrealistic in thinking that cyclamates will not be extensively used in foodstuffs once permission is given. The production of cyclamates is reasonably inexpensive. I am quite sure that manufacturers will go in for it in a big way. I have here a brochure of a firm, illustrated with bottles and jars on the shelves of a grocer's shop. It is suggested that all of these bottles and jars can contain cyclamates. It is an enormous array covering all kinds of things, including various meat and savoury products, in which one normally would not think of sweetness being used.
We have to remember that these substances are not like drugs which may only be used spasmodically in cases of illness and usually are. These will be used, once they are permitted, all day and every day, throughout the lifetime of the individual. It is very difficult to understand why we have these regulations now in view of these points which I have been making, in view of the fact that a number of medical and scientific journals have urged the need for caution, in view of the fact that the Consumer Council, which represents a very large body of consumer opinion, has also said that we should be cautious and wait for further research, and since the European Economic Commission has held up its approval for a further year while studies are being carried out.
In France, cyclamates have been banned for the present until more is known about them. It is difficult to understand what is the reason for permission being given. I am completely baffled to find the reason. Looking back on some of the mistakes that we have already made—I do not use this in any emotive way—at least when thalidomide was used it was being used to try to help women who were suffering from emotional and nervous disturbances, and there was some reason for using it, however misguided it was in the light of subsequent knowledge.
When we used persistent pesticides which had effects on birds and other wild life, at least we were using them, if misguidedly, to try to increase food supplies. But there seems to be no reason that one can find for permitting the use of cyclamates. I wonder who it is who is pushing their use. I am quite sure that it is not my hon. Friend and I do not believe that it is his advisers who are guilty. I think that possibly what it really comes down to is that it is not any one individual who is guilty of trying to push something on us which is suspect and has possible harmful overtones, but that the guilt really lies with our methods in matters of this kind, in dealing with any chemical and scientific development.
We are completely outdated in our approach to these matters. We tend to say that all these substances are harmless and innocent until we have proved them guilty. This is what we are saying about cyclamates and we have no right to do so. These substances are potentially so important that we ought to be very certain that they are suspect for use until we have proved them to be absolutely innocent.
We should pay very much more attention to this matter. We are dealing with highly dangerous and potential influences on our life in an out-of-date, old-fashioned and completely unscientific way. Studies of this kind should be linked with the Dunlop Committee, or with some other medical body, and we should take the matter much more seriously.
There is the third point that cyclamates are not suitable for use in their present form in many manufactured foods. To make them suitable for use in jams and other such products, they will have to

have artificial additives added to them, thus making our food even more artificial than it is. We are faced with this kind of situation from a Ministry which, more than any other, is responsible for the health of the nation. It is more responsible even than the Ministry of Health because positive health derives from the land and its products. The Minister is the guardian of our health and he should listen very intently to what my hon. Friends and other hon. Members and people outside the House say on this subject, and should pause before making the Regulations.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will defer the Regulations for several years until the studies for which he is asking are completed and we are reassured about the matter. If he will not defer them for several years, I hope that he will at least hold them up for a time, possibly until after the new food labelling regulations come into operation, so that we can see exactly how substances of this kind will be marked on the labels of manufactured foods. If they are to appear as permitted artificial sweeteners, the public will have no means of knowing whether the permitted artificial sweeteners are cyclamates.
I recognise that only diabetics can have a need for cyclamates. I am sure that this is a point which we all have in mind. But it can be dealt with by producing these foods as dietetic foods and marking them as such. They could be given under medical supervision and it could be made clear to the public that they are not for general consumption.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think again if he possibly can, because I am sure that we are making a big mistake in allowing these Regulations to go forward before the further studies are completed.

Mr. Speaker: If all hon. Members who seek to catch my eye are to speak, speeches will have to be brief.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for inviting me to comment on the Regulations. I find it extremely strange to be supporting what the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) has said. In the past, as I am sure will be the case in future, I have heartily opposed many of the things for


which she stands. Tonight, I hope that I shall support what she has said just as heartily, because she has pointed out extremely well all the dangers which lie within the Regulations.
I find it extremely hard to oppose the considered conclusion of the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee. It is not for us who are laymen to argue with such a distinguished Committee, because the main Food Additives and Contaminants Committee contained among its eleven members seven doctors of philosophy and I hardly feel inclined to argue with the gist of their findings.
The important figure, however, from which we cannot escape and which appears time and again, both in the considerations of the Food Additives Committee and in other documents, is the figure, which never seems to have been disputed, that it is unwise for a human being to exceed a daily intake of 50 mg. of cyclamates per kilogram of body-weight. We really can argue with the Minister if we begin by accepting that that figure is what is involved. It was agreed by the Pharmacological Committee and the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee reinforced this finding.
I was staggered by the reply given on 23rd October by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this debate, when I put down two Questions asking him about this matter and whether, bearing in mind the safe dose of 50 mg. per kilogram of bodyweight, he would make it obligatory to state specifically that sodium cyclamate is contained in any particular wrapped, packaged, canned or bottled foodstuffs or soft drinks and to make certain that the packages state how much of those substances are contained.
I was shattered that the Minister completely refused to allow the packaging of the foodstuffs simply to state how much of the substances they contain. This is a strange way of dealing with the public. It is particularly strange that the Minister should be prepared to exempt certain foodstuffs from even the very superficial packaging obligations which are imposed on most foodstuffs and he is prepared to exempt, as he stated in his reply to me, chocolate, sugar and flour confectionery and, as we have heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green, ice cream from even the superficial obligation

of stating that by generic term that artificial sweeteners are contained in foodstuffs. That the hon. Gentleman is prepared to exempt those other foodstuffs altogether is astonishing when there appears to be a generally agreed maximum dose which it is safe to consume in a day.
I was glad to receive in the post this morning a document from the Consumer Council, whom all of us, including, I am sure, the Minister, respect. It begins as follows:
Cyclamates should not be allowed to be used in food without limitations … the presence of cyclamates should be indicated by name and not under the general heading of permitted sweetener'.
The circular goes on to say:
We cannot think why the Government has rushed ahead with permitting cyclamates in virtually all foodstuffs when other countries are hanging back because of research work still being carried out.
It is astonishing that the Government have rushed ahead with the Regulations. It is particularly astonishing on the matter of labelling. I cannot understand why they cannot treat the public like adults, why they cannot expect the public to understand that a maximum safe dose is 50 mg. per kilogram of bodyweight and why they do not require the labels of all foodstuffs containing cyclamates to state how much is contained in them.
The Minister is a reasonable man and I hope that he will recognise the reasoning of this argument. I plead with him to take these Regulations away and to tell us the Government will have another look at them, and that he will be prepared, in particular, to tighten up the labelling Regulations. I am sure that when he has thought of the force of the arguments which have already been put to him and the arguments which, I know, are to be put to him by other hon. Members he will agree to take the Regulations back.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) about the need for the utmost care in the use of foodstuffs and to ensure adequate protection against unsafe products, but I also feel by the same token that we in this House have a duty not to cause undue alarm where there is insufficient ground for this.
I think that one of the things she said in her speech, which was made in a very


moderate way and a persuasive way, was that cyclamates are by no means new. They have been in extensive use in various parts of the world. There has been extensive research carried out into their use and their effects. A great many tests have been carried out. Just to give one example of their use, in the United States, for instance, they are used in 16 per cent. of the soft drinks which are consumed in the United States—a very sizable amount indeed.
Of course, their discovery was many years ago; it was back in 1944 when this new sweetening agent was first discovered. Extensive tests have been carried out from the time when the group was discovered until 1951, and I think there is some significance in a report in 1951 by the United States Food and Drug Administration, which I think that we in this country can regard as their equivalent now to our Dunlop Committee, a highly qualified and authoritative body. After evaluating researches into this material by the manufacturers that body decided that it was a safe food additive and allowed its use in food and beverages.
Taking a further look at researches which have been done from 1951 until the 'sixties, there has been a rapid growth in the United States, in particular, of products containing cyclamates. Extensive tests have been carried out from 1951 onwards, and there has been no evidence of harmful effects upon the people. I want to say a word or two more about that in a moment.
I think it worth while quoting from a statement the United States Food and Drug Administration made in May, 1965, when it said:
A review of recent studies on artificial sweeteners shows that they are safe as presently used".
It went on:
The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council in 1955 recommended that artificial sweeteners be used in special purpose foods for those who must restrict their intake of sugar and total food energy. It cited, however, evidence that cyclamates may produce a mild laxative effect"—
it is significant that this is the only effect on humans which has been noted—
at intakes of five grammes or more per day and suggested the need for additional studies of the safety of cyclamates when used

at the higher levels. In 1962 the Food and Nutrition Board republished its recommendations in a similar fashion. Within the past year F.D.A. has received new experimental data on the safety of cyclamates, including animal studies, tests involving ingestion by children and other data. F.D.A's Bureau of Medicine and Division of Toxicological Evaluation have reviewed these studies and concluded that there is no evidence that cyclamates at present use levels are a hazard to health.
I would like to add to this a word or two about British experience. It was in 1953 that the Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations prohibited the use of foods containing artificial sweeteners except in the case of saccharin. Very extensive studies on the safety of cyclamates have been carried out, and these have eventually convinced the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health. It said in 1965, for example, that it was safe to use them in soft drinks. Further evidence was supplied to the Committee after that, and it reported twice, its last Report being published in June, 1967, confirming the earlier conclusion that cyclamates were safe.
Before coming to a couple of quotations from the Reports, I want to say a word or two about the extent of the researches. The safety of cyclamates has been investigated extensively in both animals and man over the last 20 years. The work has included a variety of tests on toxicity in mice, rats, dogs, monkeys, pigs and calves. An assessment has also been made into safety in man, and it has been done in males, females and children, including an assessment in healthy people of different ages and sexes and persons afflicted by particular diseases, which have included diabetes, intestinal disease, kidney disease, and, something which has been mentioned in this connection, skin disease.
These investigations have confirmed the safety of cyclamates, and that finding has been reconfirmed in the Committee's second Report. The researches which have been carried out exceed by a very long way those carried out on any other food additive in use, and that is worth bearing in mind.
I want now to make one or two quotations from the Committee's two Reports. The first one was published in 1966. In


it, the Committee says, referring to the Pharmacology Sub-Committee:
We accept their conclusions and note particularly their remarks on the impressive extent of the information available to support the safety-in-use of cyclamates.
Among its recommendations, the Committee says:
We consider that since cyclamates do not appear to produce any toxic effects, since the amounts likely to be ingested will not be of an order likely to produce a significant laxative effect and since they will be to a great extent self-limiting, there would be no risk to health in allowing the use of cyclamates in food without statutory limitation, except for that already laid down in the Soft Drinks Regulations, 1964.
My other quotation is from the Committee's second Report, which was published in June of this year. The Committee says:
We reaffirm the recommendations in our first report and we endorse the recommendations in the second report of the Pharmacology Sub-Committee.
In its summary of Conclusions and Recommendations, the Report goes on:
There would be no risk to health in allowing the use of cyclamates without statutory limitation except for that already laid down in the Soft Drinks Regulations, 1964.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just quoted from the Report of June, 1967, despite the Committee having said that, can he explain why it goes on to say that further examination over the next three years is a matter of urgency to investigate possible toxicological dangers?

Mr. Boston: I think that the salient point here, as borne out by detailed evidence about the tests which have been carried out on animals and humans, is the very positive statement in the Report that the Committee has not been able to find evidence to support any suggestion that they are harmful to humans. That is the important point to bear firmly in mind.
During the past two years scientific reports have appeared purporting to show cyclamate toxicity. A claim was made in one that a marked decrease in the rate of growth of rats occurred, but it is important to bear in mind that these findings were based on a grossly abnormally high intake of cyclamates, and the results had been previously reported in 1958.
Another scientific observation was a finding in urine of a derivative, to which

my hon. Friend has already referred, cyclohexylamine. This substance has been investigated, and in amounts known to be formed in the body has been shown to be innocuous.
It is right to be cautious and that the most intensive and exhaustive tests should be carried out, but I am bound to say that the whole weight of the evidence that has been produced so far supports the use of this sweetener.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), because, with one important reservation, I am on his side, and I rise to give importantly qualified support to the Minister.
I was very surprised that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who moved the Prayer, should have been unable to answer the question which I put to her. It is asserted with great confidence in the Sugar Bureau's brief, which I have in my hand, and I see that I am not alone in that, that ice cream is excluded from the Regulations. With the best will in the world, having a bad habit of looking at the sources and having looked at the Regulations and read every word, I could not see that this was so. Therefore, I ask the Minister to enlighten the House, because we should know, how it is that we are told so confidently that ice cream is excluded when the passage which governs the possible exclusion of any substance, the interpretation clause, Clause 2(1), says,
"…'food' means food intended for sale for human consumption and includes drink, chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use, and articles and substances used as ingredients in the preparation of food or drink or of such products, but does not include—
(a) water, live animals or birds,
(b) fodder or feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish, or
(c) articles or substances used only as drugs.…"
There is no word about ice cream, so will the Minister explain how it is that ice cream, if it is excluded, is excluded?

Mrs. Joyce Butler: The hon. Gentleman has made reference to me. He interrupted me in the middle of my speech, when it is difficult suddenly to


shuffle one's notes; but ice cream is already covered by a separate Statute.

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for this answer. I am glad to have the authority of the hon. Lady, but a more precise and specific explanation from the Minister would be more acceptable to the House.
I turn now to the qualification and the reservation that I have in supporting the Minister. I could not quite follow the hon. Member for Faversham. I read the Sugar Bureau brief and I thought it was a very powerful and damaging document. I also read the brief that I think he had read, because I recognised certain passages in what he was saying. It only reached by hands recently, being dated within the last 24 hours. I was not very impressed with it, because it did not seem to be sufficiently detailed.
The Sugar Bureau brief, as the hon. Lady made clear, has given precise details of the exact place, time and nature of the research that is carried out, and these contradictory arguments I would not care to advance in the House. They are too vague. I do not know what research it was, and when it was done, and I discard those as being not satisfactory in answer to the Sugar Bureau brief, and therefore I say to the Minister that unless he can demolish the point made by the hon. Lady, and by my hon. Friend, about the danger of cancer, which appears to have been established since the first Report, and which was taken seriously, and not dismissed by the second Report of the Committee, I shall have serious reservations about supporting him.
I would like to devote my main argument to the objections to sugar, which I think is really the strength of the Regulations, that they provide an alternative to sugar, and I would like to say why I am glad to see them. It seemed to me that in the submissions which were made to us by the British Sugar Bureau detected a trace of economic Luddism. I could not fail to observe that on page 5, paragraph 8, under the heading "conclusions" it said that the unrestricted use of this new chemical sweetener would
cause damage to numerous Commonwealth territories depending for their livelihood on a guaranteed price for their sugar in the United Kingdom.
Although it may be true that in the short term the home grown sugar industry is pro-

tected by the Sugar Act 1956 from any shrink-age in the market, this may not obtain indefinitely; any change would involve a political decision.
That may be true, but it is not a valid argument against these Regulations on their merits. The merit of these Regulations is that they help to promote a harmless substitute for a dangerous substance, namely, sugar, and I want briefly to show how dangerous sugar is. Incidentally, the United Kingdom has the highest individual consumption per head of any civilised country, and therefore it is urgently necessary that we should not only recognise the danger in the consumption of sugar, but should take active steps to reduce its consumption. It is a danger in that it is as likely as any substance to be conducive to coronary heart disease.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend like to produce the evidence on which he bases that assumption?

Mr. Iremonger: That is what I am going on to do. It can be observed that the increase in the incidence of coronary heart disease over the past 50 years runs pari passu with the increase in the incidence of sugar. My hon. Friend may dismiss that if he likes, but that is only the first point.
There is no question now but that biologists recognise that the consumption of sugar greatly increases obesity, and I say this with great diffidence in the presence of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I am sure that he will support me in saying that he and his medical colleagues admit that the great danger of sugar is that it increases very rapidly the blood sugar and energy providing content of the body, which therefore means that proteins subsequently absorbed are diverted into forming fat because the energy requirement is available already. Therefore the more sugar that is eaten the less protein is consumed, and the more fat is put on the body. That is the submission which is made to me, and I am subject to correction, but if that is so, sugar is a prime factor in promoting obesity, and obesity itself is generally regarded as a contributory factor in coronary disease.
My third point against sugar is supported by the authority of the 1958–59 Report of the Chief Medical Officer of


the Ministry of Education, "The Health of the School Child", which says in the third paragraph on page 42:
That the greater consumption of sweets…is a major, if not the major immediate factor in this rise of tooth decay in children, is now widely accepted by dental surgeons.
In introducing the Regulations the Minister is making a useful advance towards a reduction in the consumption of sugar which, broadly speaking, is conducive to good as opposed to bad health. I therefore very much hope that he will be able to give us the reassurances that we need on the question of cancer. If he can, I shall be able to support him and regard these Regulations as representing an advance towards improved good food habits which will contribute towards the nation's health.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). Over the last year or so there has been a horrible growth in the use of artificial foods and artificial agents, and the House should require a great deal of convincing before it sanctions the use of another. It is indisputable that there are reasonable doubts among medical scientists as to the effects on human being of cyclamates, and one of the major objections to the Regulations is that they make no requirement that cyclamates should be identified specifically in products which contain them. I suggest that we are entitled to know what we are eating.
Secondly, even if we do know, there will be considerable difficulty in working out precisely the amount of dosage we should allow ourselves to take every day without ill effects. Not all of us on this side of the House are desiccated calculating machines, and we may find it difficult to work out precisely how much of this agent we have taken in a day.
Thirdly, there are considerable doubts as to exactly how safe this agent is. I refer to a leading article in the Lancet for 15th January, 1966, which, on page 135, says:
Cyclamates do not seem to have been fully tested for carcinogenicity in accordance with British requirements.

Some hon. Members may recall the words of Charles Kingsley, in Chapter 2 of "Westward Ho!", when he said:
It is sweet in the mouth, but bitter in the belly.
That may apply with great force to this agent.
The Lancet went on to say:
Furthermore, it has long been a fundamental precept of British food additive legislation that the applications of any given additive should be limited to those for which a real need can be demonstrated to exist, and that the maximum level of use should be stated, in keeping with the responsibility laid upon the Minister by the Food and Drug Act (1955)' to restrict so far as practicable the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods.' 
My fourth point is that there may be considerable damage to Commonwealth sugar-producing countries if we go ahead with these Regulations. There is a plentiful supply of cane sugar, and I should like to hear the observations of my hon. Friend on that point.
I submit that there are substantial objections to the speedy approval of these Regulations, and that my hon. Friend has to show the House why it is not possible to wait a little longer so that various tests can be made and the public can be reassured that these agents will not do them harm.
I want to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), who appeared to be saying that these agents had been used for a considerable time and that no harm had resulted. This was taken up in the leading article of the Lancet, to which I have referred. It suggested that there should be further study of the matter to which I think that my hon. Friend was referring —the Wisconsin study—and said that only after this study
…can the long record of safe use of cyclamates be balanced against the possible new hazards that may arise from excessive consumption in the diet.
There are substantial objections which my hon. Friend must answer before he can command our support for the Regulations.

Mr. Boston: Before my hon. Friend sits down—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has sat down.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: At the risk of being called a Luddite by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I must confess that, given the choice of a natural or an artificial food, I would choose to eat the former. The law of the land supports me, because the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, lays on the Minister a responsibility to restrict, so far as is practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or ingredients of foods.
Other committees which have considered additives have come down on the same side. For instance, the Committee on the Soft Drinks Industry said in 1959:
We can see no good reasons from the consumers' point of view why the practice of substituting a non-nutritious substance for use in soft drinks should continue. In our view the consumer has a right to expect soft drinks to be sweetened with sugar.
There is real force in the argument that, without positive reasons to the contrary, the consumer has a right to depend on the Government to safeguard his interests here. Even if all other things are equal, a consumer has that right, but it has been shown tonight that other things are not equal and that there are real doubts about the health hazard in cyclamates.
I will give just three pieces of evidence that there is at least a major question mark over the health factor. First, the E.E.C. announced in January this year, that it proposed to allow the unrestricted use of cyclamates, but changed that decision three months later and decided to charge a scientific committee with an investigation of them and postponed at least for a year a decision on whether they were to be allowed unrestrictedly. Only on Thursday, 2nd November, in a Written Answer, the Commission stated that research is being presently undertaken and that it wished to await the results before reaching any definitive opinion. Therefore, there is no chance of the European Economic Commission allowing the unrestricted use of cyclamates until it has a definite scientific answer about whether they involve any hazard to health.
The second piece of evidence comes from the United States. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) quoted at length from the reports of the Food and Drugs Administration. This year, that Administration started an investigation of the safety or otherwise of cyclamates and has had evidence from the United States and Japan that there is at least a possibility of cyclamates being responsible for birth defects and abnormalities in the foetus and has decided to set up a full-scale inquiry into cyclamates and the whole range of artificial sweeteners, to see whether there is any truth in these rumours.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Where did my hon. Friend obtain the evidence that this inquiry is being instituted?

Mr. Scott: It was announced by the Food and Drugs Administration on 13th January this year. Thus, be have both the United States and the European Economic Community carrying out investigations at the moment into the safety of these substances, yet Her Majesty's Government alone have decided to rush forward helter-skelter and allow them to be used in unrestricted fashion, without waiting for the outcome of the research in the United States and on the Continent.
I do not understand the reason for the hurry. Our cause for worry is whether or not cyclamates, having been consumed, are metabolised in the body. The original evidence and the claims of the manufacturers were that, having been consumed, cyclamates were excreted unchanged. It has been proved now that this is not true. Cyclohexylamine is formed in the body and excreted, and possibly dicyclohexylamine, an acknowledged carcinogen, may be formed in the body, also. We must have positive evidence about the nature and dangers of cyclohexylamine, and, further, we must have certain knowledge as to whether dicyclohexylamine is formed, before we can agree to the passing of these Regulations.
It has been proved and accepted that cyclohexylamine itself is formed in the body, and the committee which has been


referred to, the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, said:
All the evidence at present available indicates that the toxicity of cyclohexylamine is low".
I fail to see how, with the weight of evidence which has come from other sources, that view can be sustained.
One can go back to the first research into this substance which the Monsanto Company did in 1937, reporting that
Cyclohexylamine is quite caustic and will produce a dermatitis if left on the skin for any length of time.
In 1955, there was further reported research to the effect that cyclohexylamine is toxic when administered to experimental animals in various ways; it produces excitation and irritation of the mucous membranes; it is a spasmogenic poison; it has a marked local effect when applied to the skin; it has pronounced cumulative properties and it is capable of producing chronic poisoning.
All this adds up to a substantial weight of evidence that the toxicity is far from low but it quite substantial. Yet, opposed to that, we have the bald statement of the Committee that the evidence indicates that toxicity is low. Quite the contrary is the fact.
If the Committee was satisfied that toxicity was low, why did it go ahead immediately afterwards and recommend that the substance be examined from a toxicological point of view within the next three years as a matter of urgency, and that, within five years, further metabolic studies on cyclamates should be carried out? Either there is a health hazard or there is not. If there is a hazard, why the need for great urgency? If there is no health hazard, there is no need for further research.
The only conclusion one can draw from the evidence so far is that we need further research, and there should certainly be delay in bringing the Regulations into effect. The Minister must answer these points on the toxicity of cyclohexylamine in detail and make a positive case for passage of the Regulations tonight.
The other matter which worries me is that even the Committee itself, accepting that cyclamates should be used, recommend that a maximum allowable level

should be adhered to. We have no suggestion from the Government as to how this is to be enforced. An example I have is that of a boy 8 years old who has only to eat a helping of jelly at lunch, four slices of bread and jam at breakfast and supper, and have a glass of squash with supper, to exceed considerably the allowance of cyclamate which the Committee mentioned. Therefore, I believe that the Government have a very real case to answer.
On this subject, as on so many others, Dr. Johnson has something to say:
Some people have a foolish way of not minding, or pretending not to mind, what they eat. For my part, I mind my belly very studiously, and very carefully; for I look upon it that he who does not mind his belly will hardly mind anything else.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Like the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), I hope that I shall not be thought to be prejudiced in this matter. There is on the Statute Book a provision which enjoins Ministers to take great care before they recommend adding things to food—care that they should watch the matter over a period of years, in effect, although it does not say that.
Section 4(2) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, says that
…. Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods.
It is, therefore, only fair to start with a suspicion of anything which has no food value, and which can be added to food if the Regulations are not annulled.
Have Ministers had that
…regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable,…
the use of such substances? What have been their considerations in the matter? The Minister has heard the almost unanimous view of the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee that there is no hurry about introducing permission for cyclamates to be added to foods generally. He has heard the almost unanimous view that there is a fear in people's minds about them until they are proved to be safe. In effect, he says merely that they have not proved to be unsafe.
Is that sufficient? Will he not listen to the opinions which have been expressed


in the Committee and withdraw the Regulations now, before it is too late? He must give a very good explanation of the Committee's second Report and its caveats. He must explain why it wants further urgent research if it was so sure that the cyclamates were safe. Is it not obvious from the addition of those remarks to the Report that they were not proved to be safe? And if they were not proved to be safe, is it not certain that he should not be asking us to accept the Regulations now?
There is no doubt that there will be damage to the sugar producers if the Order is not rejected. I do not think that their opposition is merely a case of Luddism. To make an allusion adequately suited to a Church Estates Commissioner, this is not just a question of
Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
It is not just a question of people running around trying to save their own livelihood. A real fear has been expressed, and it's the fact that it is expressed by people who may be damaged does not detract from the value of its expression.
In the absence of proof that cyclamates are safe we should be looking at the position not only of the colonial producers of sugar, but of sugar producers at home. It may be said that the effect on them is not likely to be great because there are provisions against losses from a falling off in the consumption of home-produced sugar. All the same, these are not things to be ashamed of.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the views expressed tonight with great care and will heed them, because they have been widespread in the House, as I believe that they are among the people outside who have studied these matters.
Will the right hon. Gentleman at least make a genuflection in the direction of the Consumer Council, which has laid down two reasonable provisos? This would at least mean that, when these Regulations come into force, there would be some security for persons who are not obliged to consume dietary foods. The Council's request for foods containing cyclamates to be properly indicated by name is eminently reasonable.
In any event, what is the hurry? Why cannot this matter be postponed yet

further? It looks—I am sure that this is not the case—as though my right hon. Friend has been stampeded into this by the manufacturers. My right hon. Friend may look surprised at that statement, but people who do not know him as well as we do may too easily come to the conclusion that he and his right hon. Friend are being stampeded into this by persons who will gain materially if these Regulations are allowed to go forward.
Apparently cyclamates have at least ten times the sweetening value of sugar; and, naturally, it will be cheaper to use them than sugar in many made-up manufactured articles. One can understand people thinking that my right hon. Friend has been stampeded into this—a case of Luddism in reverse—although I am sure that that is not the case. But let him not allow that to appear to be so. Instead, he should listen to the view of the House and withdraw the Regulations, at least until research has proved that cyclamates are positively safe.

10.42 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for giving us an opportunity to discuss a matter of great importance and immense interest. For many years I have been professionally interested in the whole question of food additives. However, I will not go into the elaborate technicalities or draw on the many helpful briefs with which most hon. Members have been supplied. Instead, I shall merely draw from some of my personal recollections and observations.
To save the time of the House, and in the interests of the debate, I shall content myself with enunciating some important general principles relating to this whole subject, in the hope of getting the Minister's comments on them, for it is much more his attitude towards these principles that will influence me in my attitude towards the Regulations than the elaborate and rather contradictory details which we have been studying.
We must accept straight away the existence of food additives. In this modern world of immense populations, with many people living at even below starvation level, to do away with food additives altogether would virtually mean the death of millions of people. These


additives are needed for specific purposes, including prolonging the storage life of food and replacing nutrients that have been removed by mechanical methods of food preparation. But there are two kinds of food additives; the intentional additives and a group of unintentional additives, properly referred to as contaminants. This latter group is growing at an alarming rate and, because of this growth, we must look more carefully at the growth of the intentional additives over which we have control.
It is important for us to get down to a minimum the total amount of additives in our food. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) said it was important that we should know what we are eating. The Mad Hatter said, "I see what I eat". Nowadays, with chlorine in bread, sulphur dioxide in sausages, toluol in fats and polyphosphates in ham, and so on, it would be a wise man who even knew what he was eating. We must, therefore, keep these additives to a minimum.
What are the basic principles on which we should act? Surely we should only permit additives which are in the interests of the consumer. If additives will increase nutrient properties or make food more palatable or restore colour where it has been removed by processing, then they are acceptable in the modern world. But to use additives in order to deceive, in order to conceal the use of inferior materials, is a totally different matter and we have to decide into which category cyclamates come.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) invited me to deliver a dissertation on carbohydrate metabolism and the aetiology of coronary thrombosis. I cannot do that now, but I take the point. But there are people who have an excessive intake of sugar. It is a melancholy fact that we suffer in health from our very affluence. As rationing came in in various countries during the war, health improved in terms of vascular conditions, first, because of the reduction in the consumption of sugar and, secondly, and perhaps more important, because of the reduction in the consumption of animal fats, which are probably more important in relation to coronary thrombosis than sugar.
But the hon. Member is right. Many people, from nature or disposition, size, profile or activities, have to take care of their total calorie intake and their intake of sugar. Here we have an alternative which, so far as we can tell—and I say this advisedly—is safe for human consumption in certain specified doses. It might not be safe in great doses but it gives people the opportunity to cut down sugar intake.
It would be wrong at this stage to deprive people of the possibility of using this substitute. At the same time, it would be wrong to encourage the use of this substitute extensively. People who feel that they are taking sugar—and we all have to have a certain calorie intake, otherwise we cannot survive—are entitled to get it in terms of sugar. It is, therefore, essential to see that its use is controlled and kept to what I would call its proper use.
The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said that we must wait until this substance is proved safe and referred to the fact that, although the Advisory Committee said, "Yes" to the use of cyclamates, it added that safety must be urgently investigated. But we are investigating the safety of hundreds of things which we are all consuming every day. If we were to stop consuming everything which is being investigated, none of us would be consuming anything at all.

Mr. John Hall: But all these investigations are being carried out because doubts on these things have arisen since they were allowed to be used.

Dr. Winstanley: That is true and it is right that there should be these investigations. But let us remember that these are not risks which can be proved or disproved in the laboratory but only over an extensive period. For example, there are serious worries about the use of pesticides and whether the absorption by humans of substances from them will have certain effects. But we shall not know for many years. That is why a lot of these studies have to go on and on, and they will have to continue because new risks may appear.
There are dangers in all sorts of foods. To hear people say, "You must not eat fat, which gives you coronary thrombosis; sugar makes you fat," and so on about


almost every food, one would think that the only way to remain healthy would be to starve to death. It is a mistake to get too paranoid on this subject.
The hon. Lady is right to have given us an opportunity to discuss the matter but it would be wrong to deny the use of a rather helpful and useful substance, which seems to be safe, to certain people who find it advantageous, particularly those referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. But, at the same time, it would be wrong to allow the indiscriminate use of a substance which is not a food in place of one which is a food merely in order to assist producers. The rôle of additives is to assist those who consume food, not those who wish to use inferior materials in the production of food.

Mr. John Hall: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he not agree that we ought to know, by proper labelling, exactly what we are eating? To follow his own quotations of the Mad Hatter who said "I see what I eat", is he aware that he also said, "I do not always eat what I see."?

Dr. Winstanley: I entirely agree.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The point which weighs with me in this discussion is the impact of this on the sugar producers of countries for whom sugar is an extremely important commodity, and often their main source of livelihood. This has been described as opposing the march of progress and of course, one cannot make an absolute bar on synthetic materials of all kinds, food or anything else. This is a natural part of present-day life.
In common with other countries, we are engaged on important and far-reaching negotiations on the effect on the standard of living of people in other countries of limitations in trade of basic commodities, and particularly in natural products. Sugar is a very important commodity. There is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and there have been a series of attempts to achieve a wider international sugar agreement to safeguard the people whose livelihood depends upon it.
There will be a major conference next year in which the issue of the sale of

commodities and the related question of the use of synthetics will bulk very large. We cannot dismiss this question as inconvenient or unscientific simply because it does not matter to us economically whether we consume sugar or cyclamates.
Has any estimate been made of the tonnage of sugar that will be displaced, or might be displaced, in the manufacture of food if there is a total absence of restriction on the use of these synthetics? If it will seriously upset this country's importation of a very important raw material then it is something which should count in the argument and should weigh in the balance in deciding whether we take this action.
This is not to set oneself against the use of synthetic materials as a general principle. One could not do this today; it would be against all commonsense. It is an argument which would weigh heavily with me and, I think, with other hon. Members. If there were no other kind of objection to this substance it might be difficult to prove that point. Various hon. Members have pointed out with force that there are other objections. I am also impressed by that fact that the Consumer Council, which I always regarded as an independent body, with no special axe to grind, seems to have strong and cogent criticisms about the use of this substance as a sweetener. Can the Minister tell us, clearly and precisely, why it is necessary to allow the general use of this substance, and more particularly, why at this moment?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The House should not allow these Regulations to go forward without very serious consideration of some of the points raised. The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) has done a very great service in bringing this matter before the House. It is quite clear that not nearly enough is known about the substance known as cyclohexylamine, the substance produced by certain human beings—we do not know in what proportion—as a result of taking cyclamates.
There has been quite a lot of research from the Japanese, the French and also from the Huntingdon Research Laboratories on this subject. It is known to be a toxic substance, but what is not known is the proportion of human beings who produce this substance when they take


cyclamates. That is the matter which concerned the Pharmacology Sub-Committee, when it said that there should be more urgent research. In my view, this matter has been dealt with deeply enough tonight, and that is why great caution should be observed when considering the whole question of cyclamates.
The Regulations state that cyclamates should not contain more than 100 parts per million by weight of cyclohexylamine. We do not know in what proportion human beings produce this substance. I hope that the Minister will address himself to this point, because it is important to know the nature of the substance cyclohexylamine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give an answer about this, because the House will not feel satisfied concerning the safety aspects when so little is known about the toxic nature of this substance. It is toxic in nature, but we do not at present know nearly enough to be able to say that cyclamates can be taken safely.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: I find it difficult to understand the argument that we do not know enough about cyclamates, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). Another hon. Member asked what was the hurry. A great deal of research has been done in this country for the last ten years or so. Companies involved and the Ministry have been engaged in exhaustive work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) referred to tests on animals and humans, men, women and children, healthy and diseased. In the United States cyclamates have been used since 1951, and there are no known reported case of ill-effects in humans.

Mr. Neave: Will the hon. Member deal with the point which I have just made about the substance cyclohexylamine? That is what we do not know enough about.

Mr. Barnes: I was coming to that. Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that cyclohexylamine can be left in the system when the cyclamates are metabolised. This is mentioned in the British Sugar Bureau's report, and there is mention of the fact—a scare, in a way —that this substance can react in such

a way as to form a cancer-producing agent. The Pharmacology Sub-Committee, however, had all this evidence before considering the matter and was confident that in the sort of amounts that the substance can be found in the body, it was innocuous. I am told that the Russians have fed huge doses of cyclohexylamine to rats and have found no evidence of cancer resulting.
References have been made to the tests which are being done in the United States on monkeys and other animals. Those, I think, were the tests to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green referred. Certainly, they were the tests to which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) referred. The British Sugar Bureau's report quotes them in saying that the American Food and Drug Administration had begun investigations and that further tests with monkeys were under way. It stated that in the United Kingdom there had been more complacency on this issue. It has nothing to do with complacency, however, because—and on this the hon. Member for Paddington, South, was misleading—in March, 1967, Food Processing and Marketing reported a Food and Drug Administration spokesman as saying that:
Further studies on rats and monkeys to determine whether or not artificial sweeteners will affect the outcome of the animal pregnancies have been going on for some time. These investigations are described as normal continuing studies. Thus far they have produced no results. F.D.A. has no intention now of seeking to restrict the use of artificial sweeteners.
As recently as 2nd April this year, F.D.A Commissioner James L. Goddard, M.D., told the House Inter-State Committee that
there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners as used in foods today are unsafe or present any risk.

Mr. Scott: In the United States there is no unrestricted use of cyclamates in food. They are restricted to some foods and soft drinks, and not unrestricted. It is a very different problem when there is unrestricted use.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, but they use more sugar-free products of one kind and another than we in this country do, and what is the difference between taking cyclamates in soft drinks and in food? I do not believe there is any difference at all.
There is also in the British Sugar Bureau's report a reference to children in the United States and a calculation that
intake by children of food and beverages containing cyclamates can account for a consumption of no less than 12 grammes of cyclamates per day!
There is an exclamation mark. If that is the case, if since 1951 there have been no cases reported of ill effects in humans, surely it proves the argument I am trying to put and which some other hon. Members have tried to put, including my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, talked about pressure, and she asked who was doing the pushing. Various people have suggested in this debate that pressure has been exercised. I think it would be a good idea just to ask what is the connection between the British Sugar Bureau and Tate and Lyle, for example, because it looks very much as if Mr. Cube is now trying on inadequate pharmacological grounds to ban his competitors. If this is being done, and if words like "cancer" and "thalidomide" are being bandied about it is very serious indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) spoke about the sugar-producing countries of the world. The maximum percentage in the U.K. sugar consumption by the use of cyclamates is said in the British Sugar Bureau's circular to be 4, which is a very small percentage; 4 per cent. is the maximum, it says, which could be at risk as the result of cyclamates.
I would agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) that in our society probably too much sugar is taken into the body, and that is bad not only for teeth but in other ways as well. I would have thought that additives like these in food, particularly for those who have to watch their sugar intake, would have been entirely proper, and that these Regulations should be made at the present time.

11.3 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Time is drawing on and I shall take only a couple of minutes. I have listened to all that has been said in the debate, and I have also read very carefully the briefs which were sent to us. The Con-

sumer Council's brief is a disturbing one. I think the case is made and there should be better labelling. I do not think there is any doubt about that one.
What I am not absolutely satisfied about is the scientific evidence. We have got to be very careful in this House before we say things which are highly damaging to men of very great integrity. We have to look at the list of those who have been members of the food additives committee and be certain that what we say here is not what will damage their reputation unjustly. Having listened to people about this outside the House, and having listened to the debate tonight, and having read something about this matter, I am still not absolutely certain that there may not be some bad effects left in the body as a result of taking this form of artificial sweetener. I think that that is as strong as one can make the case.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) that in 1962 it was recommended that any ban on the use of artificial sweeteners in ice cream should not be lifted. I do not think these Regulations lift it. Therefore, that is banned. May be that is because the quantity of this sweetener might be too great if it were put into ice cream. Therefore, I am not suggesting that anything which I have said justifies lifting that ban.
I believe that the strongest case of all against these Regulations is an economic one, and that at once ceases to be a scientific decision. Instead, it becomes a political and economic argument. It appears to me that the question before the House is whether we think the passing of these Regulations will damage the British sugar industry, and, if it will, shall we mind. I do, because my constituency produces sugar, and I do not wish to see the British sugar industry damaged, whether it be in the West Indies or in the United Kingdom.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am sure that we are extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for raising this matter. The width and extent of the debate has shown the interest of the House.
I want to confine myself to discussing health aspects, and I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) into arguments about the economy. However, I know that the House will agree with him that we must not call into question, on slender evidence, the scientific reputations of those who have been dealing with these matters.
On the general principle, one of the difficulties facing any Government in considering additives and other artificial substances in food and fertilizers is that scientific examination, by its very nature, cannot establish the full consequences of the use of such substances. They can only emerge after a long period of use in practice.
That imposes upon the Government of the day a special duty to be cautious in the extension of the use of substances—in the present case, the extended use of cyclamates as an additive in foodstuffs. I would not go further than say that there is still uncertainty about the toxicity of the resulting products in the human body and about how difficult it is to ensure that the admittedly safe limits are not exceeded in ordinary consumption.
It is a very complex matter, but I hope that the Minister can give some assurances to the House, especially since these Regulations do not merely permit the use of cyclamates as a substitute for sugar for those whose health requires it, but a very much more general use in foodstuffs and drinks. We should be grateful to the Minister if he could be fairly categorical about labelling. We should like to see something more specific about the nature of the additive rather than a mere reference to recognised artificial sweeteners.
Most of us would not accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). The fact that sugar is dangerous to some people is not an argument in favour of using another substance which has no food value when it is not necessary for the health of the person concerned.
I am sure that the House will agree that the Minister has a case to answer on the detailed arguments and, most of all, on the matter to which the hon.
Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) referred, the general duty of the Government not to accept the wider use of substances of no food value until they are proved to be necessary and safe. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that point particularly.

11.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for raising this subject. I have answered many Questions on the problem in the past, including some from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), and I should like to do my best to answer every point which has been made this evening.
After all, we are dealing with a foodstuff, and it is important that people should be assured that every possible precaution is taken. Some of the words which have been used in the debate tonight might have quite frightening to people, but they have no real substance in argument.
I will first deal with the point about why ice cream is not in the Regulations. Some hon. Members have suggested that it has been left out because if cyclamates were used it would prove dangerous. There is a very simple answer why it is not included: artificial sweeteners in ice cream are forbidden under the provisions of the Food Standards (Ice Cream) Regulations, 1959. This ban is part of compositional requirements and has nothing to do with the safety of cyclamates or saccharin. The Food Standards Committee recommended a ban on the addition of artificial sweeteners as an alternative to prescribing that ice cream should contain a minimum amount of sugar. This was done in 1959 and that is the reason why ice cream does not appear in the Regulations.
I think I should also get rid of one or two of the other little things which may have coloured hon. Members views tonight. It is said that the E.E.C. has decided that cyclamates have not to be used. That is not true. All that the E.E.C. countries have decided is that they will delay harmonisation. Indeed, four countries will continue to use cyclamates, as they are doing at the present time;


so it is untrue to say that, and it conveys the wrong impression.
As far as we are informed, there has been no announcement that the F.D.A. in the U.S.A. is doing further work on cyclamates, except in the normal process of their work because, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, it is a continuing process. He was interpreting exactly what was meant in the report that was presented to the Government. The Food Additives and Contaminants Committee's recommendation for further work is a common recommendation for all types of additives, whether solvents, colours or preservatives. This is what is normally done, and rightly so, because the Government are entitled to be kept aware of what is happening on a continuous basis and the House is entitled to be informed of what is going on.
We were even concerned about the question of sugar, because obviously it plays a part in the economy of certain countries. We have talked it over with them. Nobody is delighted at losing orders, but no one is unduly alarmed. Nobody would expect us to make a decision and say, "There it is, we are making it, and it will have to be accepted."

Mr. Scott: Could the Minister say why the Committee, in recommending continuing research, used the phrase "as a matter of urgency"? This is not normal.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that if I sought to convey all I wanted to say in a speech, at the end of the day hon. Members would say that I had not answered certain questions, so I thought I might do it the other way round and answer questions and say what I would like to say in the process.
I think that what they meant was quite simple. "Quite simple" is not really correct when one is dealing with cyclamates where all these assertions are made, but I hope to be able to prove, beyond peradventure, that the decision we have come to is supported by many other countries and world organisations which have come to the same conclusion.
I had better say a few words about cyclohexylamine, because this has been mentioned frequently during the debate.
I assure the House, on the advice given to me by my specialists, that it is not a cancer-causing agent. Hon. Members should not use the terms which have been used tonight. It is easy to frighten people. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has a guilty conscience. The words "thalidomide" and "cancer" have been bandied about. These are frightening terms. What I am saying is that cyclohexylamine is not a cancer-causing agent. Dicyclohexylamine does not metabolise from cyclohexylamine. It has been looked for, but has not been found. These are the views of the people who advise my Ministry. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that the people who advise us are the most distinguished people whom it is possible to find in this country. What is more, they are people with a completely independent view, and do not receive a penny in salary for the job they are doing at the request of the Government. We are extremely grateful to them. There is no "lobby" here.
Having answered the questions, perhaps I might say what the Regulations do. Their main purpose is, of course, to allow the use of cyclamates in all foods except ice-cream. The use of cyclamates in soft drinks is already controlled by the Soft Drinks Regulations, 1964. Specifications are laid down by reference for the various types of cyclamate, and also, for the first time, for the various types of saccharin. Specifications are also included for full and half strength sweetening tablets. A minimum content of saccharin and cyclamate respectively is laid down for mixed tablets. The Regulations are already in force for tablets, and will come into force for the use of artificial sweeteners in food on the first of next month.
I am surprised to hear hon. Members say that these Regulations have been introduced hastily. If there is one thing that cannot be attached to these Regulations, it is haste, because the question of permitting the use of cyclamates in food in this country was first raised in 1956, 11 years ago, and proposals for Regulations were introduced in 1963, when the Conservative Government were in office.
Since fresh evidence about the safety of cyclamates was submitted, the question of their use was referred back to the


Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, not once, but twice, and its two reports have been printed. Both our predecessors and we were determined that no risk ought to be taken in the use of these cyclamates, and both reports from the Committee recommended that there was no hazard to health in permitting the use of cyclamates—conforming to satisfactory specifications—in food without limits.
It has always been the aim of the Government to obtain the best advice that we possibly can on the difficult questions of toxicology and chemistry involved in controlling the addition of substances to food. We think that in the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, and the Pharmacology sub-Committee, we have as expert and independent a body of scientists as it is possible to obtain, and we think that it is not unreasonable to take their advice on the scientific issues involved.

Mr. John Hall: rose—

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I want to say all that I need to say in reply. I was glad to hear the tribute paid to these distinguished people by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). When they come firmly to a decision, after considering the matter for 11 years, one feels that one ought to pay some regard to it.
It is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to consider the reports of their expert committees in the light both of comments received by them and the advice of their own experts, and then to act in a manner that consideration suggests is best. This we have done. We have not hurried. We have taken years to do the job. The normal accusation levelled against Governments is that they take far too long to act. On this occasion our predecessors and ourselves have taken 11 years, and I have no doubt that we have taken the best advice possible in making these Regulations.
It is true that further work is being undertaken on cyclamates, but work on these and similar substances is taking place all the time, and it would be unreasonable to delay any longer where

there is no evidence suggesting a risk to health. An immense amount of work has been done on cyclamates without providing any cause for alarm. As the Pharmacology sub-committee said in its First Report:
We were impressed by the extent of the information that is available to support the safety-in-use of cyclamates.
There has already been considerable experience of the use of cyclamates in food, particularly in the U.S.A., where tremendous quantities are used. When the hon. Member made his intervention with a little smile he knew that there is a fairly wide interpretation of dietary foods in the United States of America. The advice of our experts has been almost exactly echoed by that of the Joint Expert Committee of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation, which consists of toxicologists of international reputation who have considered all the most up-to-date evidence. They reiterate the findings of our own people. So, if we have the F.A.O. and the W.H.O., with their famous international experts, taking the same view as our own experts, I think we are on fairly safe ground.
It is clear that cyclamates fulfil a need. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that this choice should be available. But there is even more of a choice for the normal person, because cyclamates are nothing like as sweet as saccharin—though a good deal sweeter than sugar—and they are generally regarded as lacking the bitter after-taste of saccharin and to have a more "sugary" taste. They are not complete substitutes for sugar; they can only replace its sweetening effect. They cannot replace its nutritional, culinary and preservative functions. There is not, therefore, likely to be a wholesale substitution of cyclamates for sugar.
Their use is likely to be limited and they will mainly be employed together with sugar or saccharin. Apart from soft drinks—in which their use has been permitted since June, 1965—and sweetening tablets, the main use of cyclamates is likely to be in canned fruit and vegetables, jellies, pickles and sauces, and in certain types of sweet confectionery. It is not likely, therefore, that there will be an excessive intake of cyclamates. Many people, for reasons of health, must avoid


too much sugar. Diabetics must avoid it altogether. To these people, cyclamates will be of great benefit and will greatly improve the attractiveness of their food, particularly cooked food. They represent a technical advance which I am sure is in the general interest, provided that there is no health risk, and our experts are satisfied that there is no such risk. To make it quite clear, I repeat that this has not been done in a hurry but is the result or 11 years' consultation and work.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman said nothing about labelling, although he mentioned the U.S.A., where a clear label must go on products containing these substances.

Mr. Hoy: I get into trouble over labelling. The hon. Member for Westmorland has raised the subject, and the last time we crossed swords was when he wanted me to let his constituents' stuff go to America without too much on the label. Now he wants it the other way around.
There are no grounds for treating cyclamates differently from other substances under the general regulations about labelling of foods. When the revised provisions come into force nearly all pre-packed foods and many of those sold loose will have to carry a declaration of ingredients or a separate declaration of additives—although it may be a generic term such as "artificial sweeteners" or the name of the additive, like sodium cyclamate. By our measures on labelling, we hope to advance considerably on anything done previously.

Mr. John Hall: What research facilities are available to the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the tremendous facilities; I hope that he is not casting aspersions on these men and implying that they have formed their opinions without having done all that was necessary.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: In view of what my hon. Friend has said and the possibility of having another go at this on the food labelling Regulations, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Lords Message [7th November] communicating the Resolution,
That it is desirable that, in the present Session, the following classes of Bills be referred to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:
(1) All Consolidation Bills (whether public or private);
(2) Statute Law Revision Bills;
(3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;
(4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any report containing such recommendations—[Mr. O'Malley.];
be now considered.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise to object to this. I understand that it is not debatable now.

It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, MUNICH (CAPTAIN THAIN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am obliged to Mr. Speaker for giving me permission to raise on this occasion the question of the air accident on 6th February, 1958, and subsequent inquiries into it, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Board of Trade for his courtesy in being here at this late hour to answer the debate.
The matters of which I speak derive from the events at Munich airport on 6th February, 1958, which is coming up to, 10 years ago now. They centred round a B.E.A. Elizabethan aircraft on charter flight, flying from Belgrade and coming into Munich airport, with a crew of six and 38 passengers, a significant number of whom were members of the Manchester


United football team. There were two abandoned take-offs by the aircraft that afternoon, and on the third attempt to get off the ground, the aircraft failed to become airborne. Twenty-one people were killed instantly, two died later in hospital, and the remainder were injured, many of them seriously.
As is the usual practice on such occasions, the inquiry into the accident was carried out by the country of origin, that is, the country within which it took place, and the report of that inquiry, carried out in the normal way, was available publicly on 31st January, 1959. In the time available, I can do no more than summarise a highly complicated report. It found that the principal cause of the accident was ice on the wings of the aircraft and that responsibility for this lay on the captain, Captain Thain. Truncating the history thereafter, Captain Thain was sacked by B.E.A., and, apparently, there the matter ended.
However, that first German inquiry into the accident started what has probably been one of the greatest controversies of its kind in the history of air accidents, for consistently throughout the first inquiry and thereafter Captain Thain maintained that the principal cause of the accident was not what the German inquiry maintained it to be but was the presence of slush on the runway and the effect of that slush on his aircraft's takeoff. Increasingly, through the years, technical opinion has come to feel that there were very serious reasons for supposing that he might well be right.
Her Majesty's Government carried out their own tests through the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. This was done during the period which has elapsed since 1959. Extensive tests were made at Farnborough, to the point when, in July, 1964, as a result of representations and pressures, the Government sent to the Minister of Transport of the Federal German Government a detailed and highly documented report on the tests which had been carried out at Farnborough on the effects of slush on the take-off performance of aircraft. As a result of this, quite exceptionally and most unusually, a second inquiry into the accident was set up by the German authorities, reopening the inquiry to which I have already referred.
That second inquiry has now reported. The Minister has made the report, which comes from the German Federal Office of Aviation, publicly available. Again, to summarise a highly technical document, the German authorities maintain firmly that the principal cause of the accident was ice on the wings. But the most significant feature, perhaps, of the report is that, in addition to the report of the German inquiry, there are made available within it the technical findings from Farnborough to which I have referred. There they are for all to see, placed alongside and given equal prominence with the findings of the second German inquiry, a fact which many will feel speaks for itself.
In the short time at my disposal I hope to persuade the Minister that the findings of the two inquiries taken together are unjustified, and that the investigation is seriously unsatisfactory. I use those words deliberately, and he will recognise them. They come from the Cairns Report on accident investigation procedure, the recommendations of which are that where those conditions apply the report of the accredited representative of a country to an inquiry should be made public.
I understand the confidential nature of the accredited representative's task at any inquiry. I fully understand that in the normal course of events it might be highly inconvenient and prejudicial to the confidentiality of some of the inquiries if, as a matter of course, the accredited representative's report were made public. But Cairns recognises that there may be some few circumstances where that is justified, and my plea to the Minister is that this is one case where those conditions apply.
The Minister will understand that I cannot carry him through the various questionings and inadequacies of the technical evidence available. Therefore, I shall pick only one. I hope that he will understand that I am merely giving it by way of example, and am not resting my whole case on it.
One would feel that one of the most important set of witnesses of an accident of this kind would be the air traffic control officers. Yet the evidence is clear and incontrovertible that at the first German inquiry no statements were made by air traffic control officers. They are men of crucial importance. There had


been two abandoned take-off attempts, and by the nature of their duty the air traffic control officers were alerted to the possibility of something going wrong. The evidence of at least some of them is that they were watching the 'plane through binoculars. Yet the existence of the first two by name—Lass and Gentsch —came to light only by chance, when reference to two excerpts from statements by those two air traffic control officers was found in the papers when the evidence was available after the first German inquiry. They had made their statements within 48 hours of the accident. One would have thought that they were crucially important, and yet they were never called.
The Minister may well say that he accepts that criticism about the first inquiry, but may then ask, "What about the second inquiry?" He will find that they never gave verbal evidence at the second inquiry, that there was never an opportunity to question or cross-examine them, and that it was at the second German inquiry that the existence of two further air traffic control officers came to light.
This shows a very grave gap in the evidence. There has been no opportunity for questioning these men at either inquiry, although their evidence is immensely important. They have now been questioned. They had been alerted to what was happening, they had watched the aircraft going down the runway and they were able and trained to observe these technical matters. All four agreed that in the second half of the attempted take-off the nose wheel was brought back on to the runway. That is absolutely consistent with the presence of slush and its being the principal cause of the failure to take off.
Through the initiative of the captain of the aircraft—Captain Thain, who is my constituent—these additional statements, or certainly some of them, are available. The documents which I have with me, the work of Captain O'Sullivan and Captain Thain, have been put together in a careful and readable form and have not, as far as I know, been seen by the Minister.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): indicated assent.

Mr. van Strauhenzee: I am glad to have the Minister's confirmation on that point.
I appreciate that, in response to a short debate like this, it is not reasonable for me to ask the Minister to give a firm commitment to reopen the inquiry and publish the report of his accredited representative. However, I have surely been able, taking one example only, to show how highly unsatisfactory was the technical evidence presented to the two inquiries—the gaps and the inability to question on technical matters—and therefore am able to ask the Minister to undertake to examine this evidence and keep the door ajar until he has had a chance, on technical advice, of considering what is needed.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has certain anxieties. In reply to a Question on 25th October, he said that it was impossible, nearly 10 years later, to decide how much slush there was on the runway and that, if this was so, it was pointless to seek to reopen the inquiry. I am pressing the hon. Gentleman tonight on three grounds: first, on the evidence of the air traffic control officers which, to a non-technical person like myself, seems to be absolutely central to the whole question of what happened; secondly, on the fact that the evidence of both inquiries is on tape—it can be, and in one case has been, transcribed—so that all the evidence of the time is available to any fresh inquiry; and thirdly—perhaps most important of all—on the fact that we now know a great deal more technically about slush than we knew in 1958.
I am seeking to represent that a serious doubt exists. This is, therefore, exactly the sort of situation envisaged by the Cairns Report. This entitles me to ask that the report of the Minister's accredited representative should be published. I hope, in view of the courteous letter which the Minister wrote openly to me today, that he will not take refuge behind the possibility that one report does not exist, for he will agree that so skilled a technician as his accredited


representative could extract a report from his papers extending right over the period of time involved.
On a personal note, I appreciate that we are discussing the whole question of accident procedure. I well understand the seriousness of the request I am making because of the way in which it might react on a friendly country. I realise, too, that we are discussing something which affects a great many people. I have seen this for nearly 10 years on a much more personal basis. My predecessor in the House, Mr. Peter Remnant, was really the man responsible initially for raising this matter. He was a model of a really skilled and keen constituency hon. Member.
I took over in 1959 and, since then, I have seen at close quarters the strain that has fallen on the man who was the captain of the aircraft concerned. He feels—and is joined by the increasing weight of technical evidence; the evidence of people who fly and who know much more about this than I do—a deep sense of having been wrongly convicted and that justice requires a totally impartial British inquiry and the publication of the technical reports. Anyone who has been close to that would feel that this was a matter he would feel very strongly about indeed. It is for these reasons that I am grateful to have been allowed to raise this matter tonight.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I, too, have read the document, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has referred, which has been prepared so painstakingly by Captains O'Sullivan and Thain. I have no doubt, having done so, that there are some very grave question-marks over the validity of the findings of the German Commission. My hon. Friend has given some examples. They are not exhaustive, and he does not pretend that they are. They could not have been in the time available.
I believe that the training of our pilots and the degree of skill they reach is second to none in the world, but if that situation is to continue it is vital that they should have confidence in these procedures, wherever accidents may occur.
I do not wish to carry on any form of vendetta against the West Germans or anyone else, but the Board of Trade has a responsibility in this matter and a duty. At the moment, it seems that we almost have the worst of all possible worlds. By adding the report of the R.A.E. to the translation of the German report, the Board of Trade appears to be supporting the criticism of the German findings without coming out firmly and making it clear that it is determined to reopen the matter and unravel the inconsistencies now apparent to everyone.
I underline my hon. Friend's request that the Minister should undertake to carry out a full and fair investigation and at last unravel the truth. This seems to be the very least owed not merely to Captain Thain, but to all our pilots to whom this inevitably means an enormous amount if they are to retain the high morale and skill that they have.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to give a final answer tonight but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that he will join us in meeting on another occasion, when time is not so valuable, so that the whole matter may be finally unravelled and the truth finally disclosed.

11.48 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am extremely grateful for what I may perhaps be allowed to call the very responsible way in which the hon. Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has put his case. This accident all these years ago was a particularly tragic one, as it happens, to me, and I am as much interested as anyone else in trying to find out just what the cause of it was—not in apportioning blame but in finding out the cause.
As the hon. Member rightly said, since that awful night in 1958, there have been a whole series of investigations into what happened. There was the first report of the German Commission which came out in January, 1959. That first inquiry was reopened after representations by Captain Thain about the possible effects of fire extinguisher materials in producing ice and a supplementary report was published in March 1960.
Then, again after representations by Captain Thain and others, we had the


report of the Fay Committee, which was not dealing with the full cause of the accident but with certain aspects of the performance of his duty by Captain Thain. Subsequently a whole series of tests on the effects of slush were carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. As a result of the Farnborough memorandum, the German inquiry was reopened for a second time, with a new chairman and with two new assessors out of three. We had the report of hat in August, 1966. Finally, because there were several seemingly obvious inconsistencies in the report, we had a meeting between German and British experts in June of this year.
The hon. Member for Wokingham, like his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), while accepting these investigations, has made some pointed criticisms of the procedure at the German inquiries. He has not had time to run through all the possible criticisms that could be made, but he has especially concentrated upon the fact that neither Captain Thain nor anyone else had the chance to examine the air traffic controllers who were on duty at the time of the accident.
These air traffic controllers had given written evidence from the start, but they were not examined orally, in public at any rate. These are sharp criticisms of German procedure, but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Annexe 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation lays down two things especially. The first is that the investigation of an accident is the responsibility of the State in which the accident occurs, and secondly, that the State in which the accident occurs has the right to conduct inquiries in accordance with its normal procedures.
Under German procedure, as I understand it, both oral and documentary evidence is considered. There is no obligation on the court to allow oral examination of witnesses who have presented written evidence. I am advised that in Germany this is entirely for the court to decide. In this instance the Commission considered, and at the request of our accredited representative, reconsidered, the written evidence of the air traffic control officers, but did not believe that matters would be carried further by examining them orally.
It is obvious to me, and the whole House, that this procedure is very different from our own, but it is clear that, none the less, the procedure is in conformity with Annexe 13 of the Convention. So long as we adhere to that Convention, we have no more right to object to German procedures than they have the right, in similar circumstances, to object to our own.
What we have a right and a duty to do is to press as hard as we can as a Government through I.C.A.O. for an improvement in the international rules of accident investigation and, by discussion with all countries which adhere to the international convention, to try to see that whatever things seem to us to be wrong, in our own procedures or anybody else's, are speedily put right.
The hon. Member and his hon. Friend have both pressed me to publish the report to the Chief Inspector by our accredited representative and I was asked whether I would be willing to consider reopening an inquiry. Both hon. Members referred to a document which I have not seen and which the Board of Trade has not seen. I give the hon. Member the assurance straight away that if he will let me have that document—we have been trying to get hold of it during the last week—it will be very carefully studied; but I cannot possibly give any further assurance than that.

Mr. Corfield: I fully accept that Annex 13 does what the hon. Gentleman says it does, but what it does not do is give the exclusive right to the country in which the accident occurs. I suggest that it cannot preclude us from our duty of seeing that where a British citizen appears to suffer injustice, he should be given the opportunity to clear himself.

Mr. Mallalieu: I take the point, but I must say, not having read the document or knowing its contents, that at this moment of time, and despite the existence of the tapes, I feel that it would be extraordinarily difficult to elicit any new facts or to come much nearer than have the previous inquiries to establishing what really was the truth about the accident.
What we have done, as the hon. Member rightly said, by publishing the Farnborough memorandum is to show that a body of acknowledged expert opinion


believes that the conclusion drawn by the German inquiry—that wing ice was an essential cause of the accident—was not necessarily right and that, indeed, there is a strong alternative conclusion that slush alone could have caused the accident.
In the last minute or so, I want to say a word about Captain Thain. He was told long ago—and I have repeated this in the House—that if he applied for a renewal of his licence if he wished to do so, he would get it subject to medical, technical and flying qualifications. There is no question of his being banned from flying if he wants to resume.
Captain Thain's persistence in this matter, and the persistence of Mrs. Thain, has given greater urgency than there would otherwise have been to investigation into the slush drag problems. Although that may not be a great deal of consolation to him, he will at least understand that by his persistence he has benefited people throughout the world of civil aviation.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to Twelve o'clock.